sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

MATTER OF N~---
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner~ I seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under 
the H-lB nonimm1grant class1hcatlon for specialty occupations. Immigration and Nationality Act 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(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 did 
not establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. Upon de novo review, we will 
sustain the appeal. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the basis 
of the Director's denial. We considered the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook and the Beneficiary 's academic credentials, and conclude that the Beneficiary is qualified 
for the position. Specifically, we conclude that the Beneficiary's degrees are in "a related field," and 
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, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(2), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(iii)(C). 
Though not addressed by the Director, we also find that the duties of the proffered position are so 
specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with at 
least a U.S. bachelor's degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) . Further, we conclude that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, that the particular position being offered to the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as 
a specialty occupation as the term is defined at section 214(i)(l) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)( 4)(ii). 
Matter of NQ 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofN-□ID# 5198361 (AAO Oct. 31, 2019) 
2