sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9846175 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 29, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and 
practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's 
or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into 
the position. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established that the Beneficiary was qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief with additional evidence, maintaining that the Director erred. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 1 Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
Although the Director did not raise the specialty-occupation issue, we affirm that the preponderance 
of the evidence satisfies both the "specialty occupation" definition at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 4 )(ii) and 
also the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(A)( 4) for a particular position whose specific duties are 
so specialized and complex that their performance requires knowledge usually associated with 
attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty. 
As to the beneficiary-qualification issue upon which the petition was denied, we conclude that the 
preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Beneficiary's academic credentials, as well as 
evidence of the relationship between the duties and the Beneficiary's academic degree establish that 
the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. The totality of the evidence 
establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position. As a result, 
the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements under section 214(i)(2) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C). 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2