dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 2820382 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: WL Y 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology and consulting firm, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's 
temporary employment as a "Lead QA Analyst/Consultant" under the H-lB nonimrnigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 110l(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 Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker. The Petitioner subsequently filed this appeal. On February 14, 2019, we issued a notice of 
intent to dismiss (NOID) the appeal, as a preliminary review of the record revealed that the Petitioner 
may not have been in good standing to conduct business where it is located in the State of Texas. 
Texas law provides that the state's comptroller may forfeit the right of a taxable entity to transact 
business in the state for the same reasons it utilizes in relation to the forfeiture of corporate privileges. 1 
We further notified the Petitioner that it must submit evidence that the petitioning entity "was able to 
conduct business in the State of Texas - without interruption - from the time [it] filed the petition 
through the present day, as any such interruption may adversely affect this appeal." In response, the 
Petitioner provided a Tax Clearance Letter for Reinstatement, a Business Organizations Inquiry form, 
a Payment Portal form, a Certificate of Fact form, and its own statement. The Petitioner's statement 
in response to the NOID only identified the four documents listed above without addressing its 
uninterrupted ability to conduct business in the State of Texas. 
Turning to the evidence submitted in response to the NOID, we conclude that it also does not establish 
the Petitioner 's uninterrupted ability to conduct business in the State of Texas from the time it filed 
the petition through the date of the NOID. First, the February 28, 2019, Tax Clearance Letter for 
Reinstatement states that the petitioning organization "has met all franchise tax requirements and is 
eligible for reinstatement .. .. " Not only does this letter not establish the Petitioner's continued 
eligibility to conduct business in the state, but it actually demonstrates a break in such a status through 
expressing the organization's eligibility for reinstatement. Second, the Payment Portal form document 
illustrates that on February 21, 2019, the Petitioner submitted a payment that appears to rectify its 
1 Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 171.2515. 
franchise tax deficiency. This material also does not address whether the Petitioner maintained its 
status throughout the relevant timeframe, and it appears to verify a deficiency leading to the 
Petitioner's tax forfeiture status. 
Third, the Business Organizations Inquiry form represents an "Original Date of Filing" of July 16, 
2012, and that the petitioning organization was "In existence" on March 15, 2019 - the date this 
document was saved from a website. The information on this document does not speak to the 
Petitioner's continued and uninterrupted ability to conduct business in the state. Finally, the 
Certificate of Fact document from the Texas Office of the Secretary of State certifies that a Certificate 
of Formation for the petitioning organization was filed in the Secretary's office on July 16, 2012. We 
agree that the Certificate of Fact verifies that the petitioning organization began a company in Texas 
on July 16, 2012. However, this certificate does not speak to the Petitioner's status at any point 
between its inception and the date the state executed the certificate on March 15, 2019. As our NOID 
clearly notified the Petitioner that it must demonstrate its status within the state was uninterrupted, this 
certificate is insufficient to satisfy its burden of proof. 
The Petitioner must establish that it has satisfied all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit 
from the time of the petition filing and continuing through adjudication, which includes the present 
appeal. 2 Further, the regulation governing NOID responses states: 
In response to a request for evidence or a notice of intent to deny, and within the period 
afforded for a response, the applicant or petitioner may: submit a complete response 
containing all requested information at any time within the period afforded; submit a 
partial response and ask for a decision based on the record; or withdraw the benefit 
request. All requested materials must be submitted together at one time, along with the 
original [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] request for evidence or notice of 
intent to deny. Submission of only some of the requested evidence will be considered 
a request for a decision on the record. 3 
Therefore, when the Petitioner submitted the evidence in response to the NOID, this was a request for 
a decision on the record as presently exists. As noted above, the material on record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner consistently maintained its status to conduct business in Texas. Such 
a lapse in status would mean that a bona fide job offer did not exist to support the petition. 
We further note the order of the following germane events: NOID issued on February 14, 2019; tax 
rectification payment on February 21, 2019; and the corporation's status reinstatement on February 
28, 2019. The timing of these events appears to indicate that based on the adverse information within 
the NOID, the organization petitioned the state to remedy the issue so that it could provide evidence 
of its current status to conduct business in the state, and it is unclear whether it would have done so 
otherwise. For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit 
sought. 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l). 
2 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3