dismissed H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6034836 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 16, 2020 
The Petitioner, a computer and software consultancy company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "senior systems analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations . 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that 1) it has an employer - employee relationship with the Beneficiary, 2) the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation, 3) the availability of specialty occupation work for the 
entire period requested, and 4) the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) 
was not a material change to the off-site position offered to the Beneficiary at the time of filing. 
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 dismiss the appeal.' 
I. ANALYSIS 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E) states : 
Amended or new petition. The petitioner shall file an amended or new petition, with 
fee, with the Service Center where the original petition was filed to reflect any material 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment or training or the alien's eligibility 
as specified in the original approved petition .. . . In the case of an H-lB petition , this 
requirement includes a new labor condition application . 
Additionally, 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(l l)(i)(A) requires a petitioner to "immediately notify the Service of 
any changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a beneficiary which may affect eligibility 
1 We follow the preponderance of the evidence standard. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
under section 10l(a)(l5)(H) of the Act and paragraph (h) of this section," and that "[a]n amended 
petition on Form I-129 should be filed when the petitioner continues to employ the beneficiary." 2 
Here, the Petitioner, which is located in Texas, indicated in the initial filing that the Beneficiary would 
work full-time at a client site inl I California. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), the Petitioner informed the Director that due to "an urgent business requirement," the 
Beneficiary would no longer be at the initial client location, but would instead be working at a different 
client's location inl I California. The Petitioner further claimed that it did not need to file 
an amended H-lB petition because the Beneficiary's new assignment was in the same metropolitan 
statistical area (MSA) as the certified LCA and there were no material changes regarding the terms or 
conditions of the H-1 B employment. The Director disagreed and denied the petition, in part, on this 
basis. 
As the Petitioner does not address this issue on appeal, it has abandoned its claims. Sepulveda v. US. 
Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at* 1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned 
as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Further, as noted above, the Director denied the 
petition on four grounds-each of which would stand as an independent basis for a denial. Therefore, 
even if the Petitioner overcame the issues it addresses within the appeal brief, it still would not 
demonstrate that the petition should be approved. When an appellant fails to properly challenge one 
of the independent grounds upon which the Director based her overall determination, the filing party 
has abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the Director's adverse determination 
will be affirmed. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014); United 
States v. Cooper, No. 17-11548, 2019 WL 2414405, at *3 (11th Cir. June 10, 2019); McCray v. Fed. 
Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 839 F.3d 354, 361-62 (4th Cir. 2016); In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276,293 
(4th Cir. 2014) (finding "an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment 
against him is incorrect."); United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005). It is, therefore, 
unnecessary to analyze the remaining independent grounds when another is dispositive of the 
appeal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze additional 
grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 
I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant 
is otherwise ineligible). 
Regardless, despite the Petitioner's assertions in response to the RFE that there were not any material 
changes in the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment, the record is insufficient to 
support this claim. For example, this was not simply a change in the worksite - both the project and 
end-client changed. The Petitioner's reliance on the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 655.751 and the July 
21, 2015 USCIS Policy Memo addressing a change in worksite only is, therefore, misplaced. As such, 
the Petitioner did not establish that it was exempt from the requirement that it file an amended 
petition. 3 In addition, while the Petitioner submitted a copy of the master services agreement and 
subsequent amendments for the new end-client, it did not include any of the referenced attachments, 
2 The Petitioner stated in its initial filing that if it were to "reassign[] the beneficiary, it will make all necessary filings and 
notifications to reflect the change on the beneficiary's work conditions." 
3 The viability of the instant H-1 B petition ended with the termination of the Beneficiary's assignment to the original end­
client. 
2 
such as the scope of work (SOW) or Exhibit A (schedule). Regarding the initial end-client, although 
the Petitioner provided copies of the SOW s, large sections are redacted. 4 Without full disclosure of 
the contractual relationships between all of the parties, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that there 
were no material changes in the terms and conditions of the Beneficiary's employment. 
II. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, 
and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We also note that, according to the SOWs, it was the end-client who "will manage [the] entire program, including the 
[Petitioner]'s resources and [the Petitioner's] team will work on the tasks assigned to individual resources." It further 
indicates that "[t]asks will be assigned by [the end-client] Manager to the developers/resources." This appears to contradict 
the Petitioner's claims regarding its control over the project. 
3