dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 14, 2024 In Re: 30650619 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(B), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(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 Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ (h)(l l )(iii)(A)(2), concluding that the facts the Petitioner stated were untrue, incorrect, inaccurate, 
fraudulent, or were materially misrepresented. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 2 l 4.2(h)( 11 )(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent 
to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petition in the capacity 
specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true and correct, 
inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petition violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( l 5)(H) of the Act or 
paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
The regulations require that USCIS provide notice consisting of a detailed statement of the grounds 
for revocation of petition approval and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the 
notice of intent to revoke. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner, claiming to be an accounting firm with four employees, filed the petition with a request 
for consular notification so that it could employ the Beneficiary in what it described as an accountant 
position based at its principal place of business. 
In May 2021, the Petitioner appeared for a visa interview at the United States Embassy in Beijing, 
People's Republic of China. The Director advised the Petitioner in the notice of intent to revoke (ITR) 
that the Beneficiary expressed an apparent inability to describe their job duties despite having 
ostensibly served in the same position with the Petitioner whilst participating in curricular and optional 
practical training. The petition was subsequently returned to USCIS through the Department of State's 
Kentucky Consular Center with a request for a site visit at the Petitioner's principal place of business, 
a home office located in the garage of a residence inl ICalifornia. 
The site visit uncovered untrue, incorrect, inaccurate, fraudulent, or materially misrepresented facts 
underpinning the evidence, documents, and statements the Petitioner submitted in connection with the 
petition. The Director advised the Petitioner in the ITR that its responses to questions posed during 
the in-person interview of the Petitioner's CEO conducted during the site visit were not credible. The 
Petitioner's response to the ITR did not contain sufficient material, relevant, or probative evidence to 
satisfy the Director's concerns respecting the existence of a bona fide specialty occupation. 
Consequently, the Director revoked the petition's approval. The Petitioner timely filed this appeal. 
The Petitioner's response to the ITR contained a description of the duties the Petitioner intended the 
Beneficiary to perform. But the evidence the Petitioner provided in response to the ITR did not 
satisfactorily address the doubts raised about the proffered position's true nature during the 
Beneficiary's visa interview and the in-person interview of the Petitioner's CEO conducted during the 
site visit. The Director described in their notice revoking the petition's approval that during the in­
person interview conducted during the site visit, the Petitioner's CEO did not provide credible 
information regarding the nature of the job they proffered to the Beneficiary. This prompted the post 
site visit conclusion that the Beneficiary had not previously and would not in the future perform the 
job duties of a bona fide specialty occupation nature in the field of accounting. And the evidence and 
documentation the Petitioner submitted did not sufficiently describe the specialized nature of the 
accounting duties the Petitioner purported the Beneficiary would perform. For example, the Petitioner 
2 
submitted translations of selected work assignment records in WeChat, a list of the Petitioner's clients 
the Beneficiary worked on (whilst abroad), and financial reports purportedly prepared by the 
Beneficiary for selected clients who have engaged the Petitioner for its services. But it was not evident 
from these documents that the Beneficiary prepared them, or even if they prepared them, whether 
preparation required the performance of accounting level duties amounting to a specialty occupation. 
In other words, it is not clear in the evidence the Petitioner submitted whether the Beneficiary 
performed the specialized duties of an accountant in the preparation of the work product, or whether 
they were in fact even responsible for the work product. We therefore cannot evaluate whether the 
duties performed required performance of duties commensurate with those in a specialty occupation. 
In sum, the Petitioner's untrue, incorrect, inaccurate, fraudulent, or materially misrepresented facts 
uncovered during the site visit in-person interview were not adequately rebutted with material, 
relevant, or probative evidence. The Director's revocation of the approval of the petition pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § (h)(l l)(iii)(A)(2) will consequently remain undisturbed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here. The appeal 
must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3