dismissed H-1B

dismissed H-1B Case: Education Administration

📅 Date unknown 👤 Organization 📂 Education Administration

Decision Summary

The motion to reconsider was dismissed as moot because the Beneficiary's application for permanent residence (Form I-485) had already been approved. The AAO further noted that even if the case were not moot, the motion would be dismissed on its merits because the Beneficiary was not eligible for an H-1B extension beyond six years under the cited regulations.

Criteria Discussed

Extension Of Status Beyond Six Years 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(H)(13)(Iii)(D) 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(H)(13)(Iii)(E)

View Full Decision Text

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5713737 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 31, 2020 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "program manager - Confucius Institute" 
under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary qualified for an extension of H-lB status beyond six years. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal decision . 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services records indicate that the Beneficiary's Form I-485, 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, has been approved . As the Beneficiary 
has been approved for lawful permanent residence status, further pursuit of the matter at hand is moot. 1 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner requested a refund of the motion fee arguing that the previous decision did not correct ly interpret the law. 
However , if we reached the merits of the matter, we would affirm our previous decision and dismiss the motion. The 
Petitioner misunderstands the regulations pertinent to the issue on its motion. The purpose of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(D) is to provide relief due to lengthy adjudication delays on labor certifications and immigrant visa 
petitions under section 203(b) of the Act. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(E) exempts certain individuals 
with approved immigrant visa petitions under section 203(b )(I ),(2), or (3) of the Act who are eligible for immigrant status 
bur for the application of the per country Limitation. The Beneficiary in this matter does not qualify for relief under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l3)(iii)(D) because there was no lengthy adjudication delay; and, is not eligible for relief pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(E) because his immigrant visa petition was approved under 203(b)(5) of the Act. The Petitioner's 
argument for a refund has no basis in fact or law.

Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.