sustained H-1B Case: Unspecified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10593972 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB 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-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 California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred and the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the position. 
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. 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, we find that the Petitioner has overcome 
the basis of the Director's denial. In this matter, the record demonstrates that the proffered position is 
a specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii)(A) . The Petitioner has established 
that the Beneficiary's U.S. degree is in a related field required by the occupation. Our review of the 
Beneficiary's academic credentials, the opinions regarding the duties, and the requirements necessary 
to perform those duties establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary is 
qualified to perform the duties of the specialty occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(l) . 
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).