dismissed H-1B Case: Education

MATTER OF E-B-R-P-S-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 28, 2015 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a non-profit public school system, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a secondary 
teacher (English) and to classify her as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty occupation. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California Service Center, denied the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary is entitled to a 
seventh-year H -1 B extension in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 1 
II. H-1B CLASSIFICATION- TIME LIMITS 
On the Form I-129, the Petitioner was asked to provide the Beneficiary's prior period of stay in H 
classification in the United States. The Petitioner was notified that it should list only those periods 
in which the Beneficiary was actually in the United States in an H classification. The Petitioner 
provided the following information on the Form I-129 (page 11): 
From: 07/27/2008 
From: 11/28/2009 
From: 07/31/2010 
From: 07/22/2011 
To: 08112/2009 
To: 06/01/2010 
To: 05/27/2011 
To: PRESENT 
Section 214(g)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4) provides: "In the case of a nonimmigrant 
described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the period of authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant 
may not exceed 6 years." Section 106(a) and 104(c) of the "American Competitiveness in the 
Twenty First Century Act" (AC21) as amended by the "Twenty-First Century Department of Justice 
1 We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see 
5 U.s.c. § 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
I 002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Matter of E-B-R-P-S-S-
Appropriations Authorization Act" (DOJ21) temporarily removes the six-year limitation on the 
authorized period of stay in H-1 B classification for foreign nationals under certain conditions. 
More specifically, an exemption is available under section 106(a) of AC21 for certain foreign 
nationals whose labor certifications or immigrant petitions remain undecided due to lengthy 
adjudication delays. See Pub. L. No. 106-313, § 1 06(a), 114 Stat. 1251, 1253-54 (2000); Pub. L. No. 
107-273, § 11030A(a), 116 Stat. 1836 (2002). According to the text of section 106(b) of AC21, 
foreign nationals may have their "stay" extended in the United States in one-year increments 
pursuant to an exemption under section 1 06( a) of AC21. 
As amended by section 11030A(a) ofDOJ21, section 106(a) of AC21 reads: 
(a) EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATION. -- The limitation contained m section 
214(g)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4)) with 
respect to the duration of authorized stay shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien 
previously issued a visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), if365 days or more 
have elapsed since the filing of any of the following: 
(1) Any application for labor cert~fication under section 212(a)(5)(A) of such Act 
(8 USC§ 1182(a)(5)(A)), in a case in which cert~fication is required or used by 
the alien to obtain status under section 203(b) of such Act (8 US C. § 1153(b)). 
(2) A petition described in section 204(b) of such Act (8 US C. § 1154(b)) to 
accord the alien a status under section 203 (b) of such Act. 
Section 11 030A(b) of DOJ21 amended section 1 06(b) of AC21 to read: 
(b) EXTENSION OF H-1B WORKER STATUS--The [Secretary of Homeland 
Security] shall extend the stay of an alien who qualifies. for an exemption under 
subsection (a) in one-year increments until such time as a final decision is made-
(1) to deny the application described in subsection (a)(l), or, in a case in which 
such application is granted, to deny a petition described in subsection (a) (2) filed 
on behalf of the alien pursuant to such grant; 
(2) to deny the petition described in subsection (a)(2); or 
(3) to grant or deny the alien's application for an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
residence. 
2 
Matter of E-B-R-P-S-S-
Pub. L. No. 106-313, § 106(a) and (b), 114 Stat. 1251, 1253-54 (2000); Pub. L. No. 107-273, 
§ 11030A, 116 Stat. 1836, 1836-37 (2002) (emphasis added to identify sections amended by 
DOJ21). A delay of 365 days or more in the final adjudication of a filed labor certification 
application or employment based immigrant petition under section 203 (b) of the Act is considered "a 
lengthy adjudication delay" for purposes of this exemption. See Pub. Law No. 107-273, 116 Stat. at 
1836. 
The record shows that the ETA Form 9089, Application for Permanent Employment Certification, 
was filed on May 21, 2014. However, the instant H-1B extension petition was filed on November 
24,2014, approximately 187 days after the ETA Form 9089 was filed. Therefore,365 days or more 
had not elapsed since the filing of the ETA Form 9089 when the current H-1B petition extension was 
filed on November 24, 2014. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the date it began the mandatory recruitment period for the labor 
certification process should be considered the filing date. The Petitioner further claims that since it 
began recruiting on February 10, 2014, 365 days had passed when USCIS made its decision. As 
discussed above, section 106(a) of AC21, as amended by DOJ21, removes the six-year limitation on 
the authorized period of stay in H-1B visa status for certain applicants if 365 days or more have 
elapsed since the filing of an application of labor certification. Thus, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary qualifies for an exemption from the six-year limit and is thereby 
eligible for an extension of stay under section 106(a) of AC21. 
We now turn to section 1 04( c) of AC21 regarding the exemption to the limited period of authorized 
admission under section 214(g)( 4) of the Act. More specifically, section 1 04( c) of AC21 reads in, 
pertinent part, as follows: 
Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1184(g)(4)), any alien who-
(1) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section 204(a) of that Act [8 U.S.C. 
§ 1154( a)] for a preference status under paragraph ( 1 ), (2), or (3) of section 
203(b) of that Act[8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)]; and 
(2) is eligible to be granted that status but for application of the per country 
limitations applicable to immigrants under those paragraphs, 
may apply for, and the Attorney General may grant, an extension of such 
nonimmigrant status until the alien's application for adjustment of status has been 
processed and a decision made thereon. 
Pub. L. No. 106-313, § 104(c), 114 Stat. at 1253. 
Section 1 04( c) of AC21 is applicable when a foreign national, who is the beneficiary of a Form 
I -140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for the application of a 
3 
Matter of E-B-R-P-S-S-
per country limitation to which that foreign national is subject or, alternatively, if the immigrant 
preference category applicable to that foreign national is, as a whole, "unavailable." Thus, to 
establish eligibility under the exemption at 1 04( c) of AC21, the Petitioner must establish that at the 
time of filing for the extension of H-1B nonimmigrant status, the Beneficiary is not eligible to be 
granted lawful permanent resident status on the basis that he/she is subject to a per country or 
worldwide visa limitation in accordance with the his/her immigrant visa "priority date." However, 
the Petitioner does not assert and there is no evidence to support a claim that the Beneficiary here 
qualifies for an exemption under 1 04( c) of AC21. 
Generally, an H-1B petition may not be approved on behalf of a beneficiary who has spent the 
maximum allowable stay as an H-1B nonimmigrant in the United States. Specific limits on what is 
regarded as a temporary period of stay in all H classifications are included in the regulations to 
reflect the temporary nature of these classifications and to achieve consistency in the processing of 
requests for extensions of stay. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). In visa 
petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-B-R-P-S-S-, ID# 14792 (AAO Oct. 28, 2015) 
4