sustained H-1B Case: Video/Ip Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8705058 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : WL Y 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a developer of video /IP technology , 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. § l 101(a)(l5)(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 record did not 
establish that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. In these proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. Upon de nova 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 determine that the Petitioner has overcome the 
basis of the Director's denial. The Petitioner has provided a detailed job description for the proffered 
position , as well as work samples corresponding to the position, and explained why these duties, when 
performed within the context of its specific business operation, are specialized and complex . 
Specifically, we conclude that the nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the 
knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with the attainment of a baccalaureate or 
higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 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. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) . 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.