sustained H-1B Case: User Experience Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8866415 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software and technology services provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "user experience designer" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 1 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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo. 3 Upon de novo 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 that it is so complex or unique that it can 
be performed only by an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in specific specialty, or the 
equivalent. The Petitioner provided a sufficiently detailed job description and explained why the 
duties are specialized and complex. Specifically, the Petitioner explained the Beneficiary's role within 
the context of its business operations and also provided examples to substantiate its claims. As such, 
the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated why the Beneficiary 's duties require specialized 
knowledge usually associated with a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence of record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4) and that the proffered position qualifies for classification as a specialty 
occupation as defined by section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(4)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).