sustained H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8990639 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-18) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 01, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an ..___ ________ _, under 
the H-18 nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-18 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the position qualified as a specialty occupation under any of the criteria in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the Director's decision was in error. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence.1 We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. 2 Upon de nova review, we will sustain the appeal. 
The evidence of record establishes that the proffered position requires the theoretical and practical 
application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree 
in the specific specialty or its equivalent. It therefore 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. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). It also establishes that 
the position is so complex or unique that it can only be performed by an individual with a bachelor's degree 
in a specific specialty, and therefore also satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).