dismissed H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16287653 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 23, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information technology and software development company, seeks to extend the 
temporary employment of the Beneficiary as a "delivery manager" 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the Beneficiary does not qualify for an extension of H-lB employment beyond the 
maximum period of authorized admission of six years. 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. We 
will reject the appeal. 
The instant petition , filed June 26, 2020, requested an employment period for the Beneficiary 
beginning June 22, 2020 through September 7, 2020. The Director concluded that the requested 
employment period exceeded the six-year authorized admission limit for H-lB workers and that the 
1 In a separate decision, the Director concluded that the delay in filing the Beneficiary's extension of stay request was not 
due to extraordinary circumstances and could not be excused as a matter of U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services 
discretion . We note that an "extension of stay" must be distinguished from an extension of H-lB status , which occurs 
through a "petition extension ." Although those seeking H-lB status are currently permitted to file one form to request a 
petition extension , extension of stay, and change of status, they are still separate detenninations. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l4) ; 
8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c) ; 8 C.F.R. § 248.3(a) ; 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(h)(l5)(i). In addition , 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l5)(i) specifically 
states that, "[e]ven though the requests to extend the petition and the alien 's stay are combined on the petition , the director 
shall make a separate determination on each." Thus, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l4) deals only with H-lB petition extensions , 
8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c) relates solely to extension of stay requests , and 8 C.F.R . § 248.3(a) addresses change of status requests 
to H-lB classification. As evident from the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(4)(i) , a request for an extension ofsta y can 
be distinguished from a request for a petition extension in that the late filing of a request for an extension of stay may be 
excused at the discretion of the director under certain circumstances. However , pmsuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(S) , there 
is no appeal from the Director 's denial of an application for extension of stay filed on Form 1-129 or Form 1-539. Thus, 
any denial of an extension of stay request is not within om jurisdiction. 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the Beneficiary qualifies for an H-1 B extension beyond the 
six-year limit. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that due to miscommunications between it and its counsel, it 
entertained the possibility of an extension of the Beneficiary's stay until September 7, 2020. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner filed the instant petition requesting an H-lB employment period for the 
Beneficiary beginning June 22, 2020 through September 7, 2020. The instant petition based the 
extension request on receipt number.__ _______ __.2 However, the requested intended 
employment period does not fall within the Beneficiary's maximum six-year limit in H-lB status and 
the Beneficiary does not qualify for an H-1 B extension beyond the six-year admission period limit. 
The Petitioner does not challenge this determination on appeal. Rather, the Petitioner requests that 
USCIS correct the Beneficiary's maximum period of authorized stay records to reflect that his six-year 
limit of H-1 B status expired on February 25, 2020. 3 This request is not properly before this office. 
The authority to adjudicate appeals is delegated to us by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the authority vested in him through the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); see also 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003). The regulations limit our jurisdiction over petitions for temporary workers to 
those described under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2 and 214.6. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(f)(3)(iii)(J) (2003). There 
is no underlying petition requesting the Beneficiary's intended employment period from July 6, 2019 
to February 25, 2020. The Petitioner points to no authority for this office to correct the Petitioner's 
material errors in a previously adjudicated and approved petition or in the instant petition. 4 As there 
is no legal basis for the Petitioner's request the appeal must be rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
2 USCIS records show that this petition was approved for the Beneficiary's employment beginning January 8, 2018 and 
ending July 6, 2019. 
3 The record includes the Beneficiary's passport and other documents demonstrating his stay in H-lB status in the United 
States and showing that his six-year maximum period of stay expired on or about February 25, 2020. However, the instant 
petition did not request an intended employment period from July 6, 2019 to February 25, 2020 and the record does not 
include a ce11ified labor condition application inclusive of those dates. 
4 USCIS does not have the discretion to disregard its own regulations, even if it would benefit a petitioner. See Reuters 
Ltd. v. F. CC, 781 F .2d 946 ( C.A.D. C. 1986) ( an agency must adhere to its own rules and regulations; ad hoc departures 
from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be sanctioned). 
2