dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 3 1 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, initially approved the nonimmigrant visa 
petition. In response to new evidence and upon review of the record, the Director issued a Notice of 
Intent to Revoke (NOIR), and ultimately did revoke the approval of the petition. The matter is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. Approval of the 
petition will remain revoked. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the petitioner describes itself as a 
600-employee "Systems Integration & Information Technology Related Services" firm established in 
In order to continue to employ the beneficiary in what it designates as a "Programmer 
Analyst" position, the petitioner seeks to classify him as a nonimmigrant worker in a specialty 
occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b ). 
The Director approved the visa petition on December 23, 2010. However, on March 1, 2013 the 
Director issued an NOIR in this matter. A response to the NOIR was not received. Subsequently, 
on January 15, 2015, the Director revoked approval of the visa petition. The petitioner filed a timely 
appeal on January 30, 2015. 
The Director's revocation of approval of the petition was based on her finding that the evidence does 
not demonstrate that (1) the beneficiary will work in the claimed work location, (2) the petitioner has 
employed the beneficiary in a specialty occupation, (3) the petitioner met the employer-employee 
relationship requirement, and ( 4) the Labor Condition Application (LCA) is valid for all work 
locations. 
The record of proceeding before us contains: (1) the petitioner's Form I-129 and the supporting 
documentation filed with it; (2) the Director's NOIR; (3) the Director's revocation decision; and 
( 4) the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) and the petitioner's submissions on appeal. We 
reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. 1 
Upon review, we have determined that the Director did not err in her decision to revoke approval of 
the petition. Accordingly, the Director's decision will not be disturbed. The appeal will be 
dismissed, and approval of the petition will remain revoked. 
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1B petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(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 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner 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 petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved 
petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101(a)(15)(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. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 
days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence 
presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part .... 
III. ANALYSIS 
In the visa petitiOn and supporting materials, the petitioner stated that it would provide the 
beneficiary, through Pacific Management Systems, Inc. to work on a project in the offices of 
California. 
The LCA submitted with the visa petition identifies two work locations. 
California location and the other is the petitioner's own location in 
such, the LCA is certified for employment in and near California and 
Illinois. It is not valid for employment in any other area. 
One is the 
, Illinois. As 
Subsequent to the petition's approval, the Director issued an NOIR to the petitioner, stating that 
USCIS had obtained new information regarding the beneficiary's employment with the petitioner. 
Specifically, the Director observed that in an interview before a consular officer in the 
beneficiary revealed that he would not be working on the _ project, but would be 
placed through a middle vendor, on a project for end-client 
at California. Although the Director offered the petitioner an 
opportunity to respond to the NOIR, no response was then received. The Director revoked approval 
of the visa petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Upon review of the record, we find that USers records indicate that the NOrR was mailed to the 
petitioner's address of record. We also find that the NOrR properly placed the petitioner on notice 
that revocation of the approval of the petition was contemplated within the scope of the revocation­
on-notice provisions. The record does not indicate that the NOrR was returned as undeliverable. 
Further, even if the Director had erred as a procedural matter in not issuing an NOrR, which the 
record does not support, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process 
itself. The petitioner has in fact supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would serve no 
useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner yet another opportunity to 
supplement the record with new evidence. 
As to the issue of the location where the beneficiary was working pursuant to the instant visa 
petition, the petitioner stated: 
During the adjudication of the petition, the project at ended. 
The beneficiary was immediately moved to a position as a Programmer Analyst at the 
end-client, _ _ facility. The Petitioner filed an LeA for this new location, 
effective 12/31/2010 to 12/12/2013, which was later withdrawn. [Parenthetical 
omitted.] The Petitioner did not receive a Request for Evidence on the petition, and it 
was approved on December 23, 2010. [Parenthetical omitted.] 
The petitioner concedes that the beneficiary was moved to a project at a facility which was 
not listed on the Form r-129 and the accompanying LeA. A change in the terms and conditions of 
employment of a beneficiary that may affect eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act is a 
material change. See 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(i)(A) (requiring 
that a petitioner file an amended petition to notify users of any material changes affecting 
eligibility of continued employment or be subject to revocation). Having changed the beneficiary's 
place of employment to a geographical area not covered by the original LeA, the petitioner was 
required to immediately notify USers and file an amended or new H-1B petition, along with a 
corresponding LeA certified by DOL, with both documents indicating the relevant change. 
We also find that the duties the beneficiary performed at have not been sufficiently shown 
to be specialty occupation duties. The skeletal descriptionL provided in the documentation 
is insufficient to demonstrate that the duties the beneficiary performed qualify as specialty 
2 The only evidence from 
April 27, 2001, from 
following duties: 
pertinent to the services the beneficiary would provide is a letter, dated 
signing as a Senior HRIS & Compensation Analyst at It lists the 
• Analysis, design and development of Deal sheets System and Employee Admin 
applications 
• Develop the enhancements to the Deal sheets System 
• Support and maintenance of Deal sheets System and Employee Admin applications 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
occupation duties by virtue of requiring a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty or 
its equivalent. As recognized by the court in Defensor, supra, where the work is to be performed for 
entities other than the petitioner, evidence of the client companies' job requirements is critical. See 
Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387-388 (5th Cir. 2000). The court held that the former 
Immigration and Naturalization Service had reasonably interpreted the statute and regulations as 
requiring the petitioner to produce evidence that a proffered position qualifies as a specialty 
occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services. 
/d. at 384. Such evidence must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the type and educational level 
of highly specialized knowledge in a specific discipline that is necessary to perform that particular 
work. The evidence, therefore, does not demonstrate that the petitioner employed the beneficiary in 
a specialty occupation position. The evidence is also insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner 
had the requisite employer-employee relationship with the beneficiary while he was working at 
LeapFrog's location. 
Finally, the evidence indicates that the petitioner employed the beneficiary in California, 
a location for which the LCA initially submitted was not valid. However, as discussed earlier, an H-
1B employer must file an amended or new H-1B petition when a new LCA is required due to a 
change in the H-1B worker's place of employment. A change in the terms and conditions of 
employment of a beneficiary that may affect eligibility under section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Act is a 
material change. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(i)(A) (requiring 
that a petitioner file an amended petition to notify USCIS of any material changes affecting 
eligibility of continued employment or be subject to revocation). 
For the foregoing reasons, the visa petition was revocable pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(4). The appeal will be dismissed and approval of the visa petition will remain 
revoked on both bases. 
IV. 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; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.