sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Imm igration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAR 3 1 2015 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110 l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non­
precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy 
through non-precedent decisions. 
n Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The service center director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be sustained. The 
petition will be approved. 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a limited 
liability corporation that was established in . The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as 
a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The director denied 
the petition, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish that the beneficiary is qualified 
to perform the duties of the specialty occupation position. 
The record of proceeding before us contains the following: (1) the Form I-129 and supporting 
documentation; (2) the director's request for evidence (RFE); (3) the petitioner's response to the 
RFE; (4) the director's decision; and (5) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and 
supporting documentation. 
We reviewed the entire record of proceeding, including the evidence supplementing .the appeal, and 
find that the petitioner has overcome the director's ground for denying this petition. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision dated June 27, 2014 is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and 
the petition is approved.