dismissed H-1B Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-C-0-T-, P.A. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 8, 2016 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a complete cardiac care facility, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
medical researcher under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) § 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director, California 
Service Center, revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
I. ISSUE 
The issue before us is whether the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition. 1 
II. AUTHORITY TO REVOKE APPROVAL OF AN H-1B PETITION 
In general, the authority to revoke approval of an H-1B petition is found at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11), 
which states, in pertinent part, the following: 
Revocation of approval of petition. 
(i) General. 
(A) The Petitioner shall immediately notify the Service of any 
changes in the terms and conditions of employment of a 
beneficiary which may affect eligibility under section 
101 ( a)(15)(H) of the Act and paragraph (h) of this section. An 
amended petition on Form I-129 should be filed when the 
petitioner continues to employ the Beneficiary .... 
1 We reviewed the record in its entirety before issuing our decision. We conduct appellate review on a de novo 
basis. Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 l&N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015); see also 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."); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n.9 (2d Cir. 1989). We follow the 
preponderance ofthe evidence standard as specified in Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Matter of C-C-0- T-, P.A. 
(B) The Director may revoke a petition at any time, even after 
expiration of the petition. 
* * * 
(iii) Revocation on notice-
(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) 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 .... 
We find that the content of the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) approval of the petition 
comported with the regulatory notice requirements, as it provided a detailed statement that conveyed 
the proposed grounds for revocation encompassed by the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)( A), and that it also allotted the Petitioner the required time for the submission of 
evidence in rebuttal that is specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(B). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofC-C-0-T-, P.A. 
III. DISCUSSION 
The Petitioner filed the petition on April 1, 2014, and the Director approved it on June 7, 2014. 
According to the Petitioner, the Beneficiary will provide his services as a medical researcher on a 
part-time2 basis at the Petitioner's place of business in Texas from October 1, 2014, until 
September 3, 2017. 
Subsequent to the approval of the petition, the Beneficiary was interviewed at the U.S. Consulate 
General in Pakistan. Upon interview, the consular officer determined 
that there were 
inconsistencies in the information provided by the Petitioner, and noted that the Beneficiary was 
unable to describe the duties of the proffered position in detail. The consular officer requested 
further review and reconsideration of the approval of the petition. 
The Director issued the NOIR on April 7, 2015, which notified the Petitioner that she was 
contemplating revoking approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A). The 
Director did not find the Petitioner's response to the NOIR persuasive, and she revoked the approval 
of the petition on May 26, 2015. The Petitioner submitted a timely appeal. 
Upon review of the entire record of proceeding, we find that the evidence of record does not overcome 
the Director's basis for revoking the approval of the petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed, and the petition will remain revoked. 
As noted, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would provide his services as a medical 
researcher on a part-time basis at the Petitioner's place of business in Texas from 
October 1, 2014 until September 3, 2017. However, based upon the Beneficiary's inability to 
describe the duties of the proffered position in detail during an interview at the U.S. Consulate 
General, Pakistan, and receipt of inconsistent information from the Petitioner as to whether 
it would employ the Beneficiary on a full- or part-time basis, the consular officer requested the 
Director to further review and reconsider of the approval of the petition. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner submitted a letter from its former counsel, a letter from the 
Beneficiary, an affidavit from its president, and an employment agreement 
entitled "Research Coordinator Employment Agreement" executed on September 23, 2014, by the 
Beneficiary and the Petitioner. 
In his letter dated April 27, 2015, the Beneficiary stated that "the questions were high pressured" 
during the interview, which made him "nervous and confused." The Beneficiary further stated that 
the proffered position is not complicated and emphasized his credentials as a physician and a 
researcher. 
2 On the petition, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would work 20-30 hours per week. However, the record also 
contains a contract executed after the petition's approval, which called for the Beneficiary to work on a full-time basis. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of C-C-0- T-, P.A. 
In his affidavit dated April 29, 2015, acknowledged the inconsistencies in the information 
provided, however, he attributed the inconsistencies to a "typographical mistake" made by his staff. 
He further stated that "Schedule A" document attached to the employment agreement "clarifies the 
rate of payment, start date and duration ofthe contract, etc." 
We note several inconsistencies in the information provided by the Petitioner. First, the employment 
agreement submitted by the Petitioner states that it was entered into between '' 
and the Beneficiary. However, the record contains insufficient evidence 
demonstrating that and the Petitioner constitute the same business entity. 
We further note inconsistencies in the job title and duties of the proffered position. In the petition 
and in its support letter, the Petition stated that the Beneficiary would be employed as a medical 
researcher. The employment agreement, on the other hand, was executed for a research coordinator. 
Furthermore, in 
its support letter, dated March 13, 2014, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary 
will be responsible for the following duties (verbatim): 
[C]onducting research to develop methodologies, instrumentation and 
procedures for medical applications, assist in the investigation of disease and 
preventive methods and treatment, prepare and analyze tissues and cell samples to 
identify toxicity, bacteria or microorganism to study cell structure. The research will 
also entail collection of data, from patients lists, utilize statistical modeling, to 
determine cause and effect of different variable. Make suggestions to the chief 
physician on how to modify the approach to existing data, to make proper use of it. 
His duties will also entail assisting the chief physician in writing case reports 
on unique cases, as well as assist in drafting and editing review articles for the data 
and review to be published. In addition, the Medical Researcher will investigate 
causes, progress, life cycle, or mode of transmission of diseases, and polygene, 
conduct research in specialized libraries, confer with health department officials, 
industry personnel, physicians and others to gain insight in particular research areas 
and help in the development of treatment and health improvement programs. 
The employment agreement, however, states the following (verbatim): 
Duties. Research Coordinator's duties shall include, but not be limited to: 
(i) Interviewing, examining, providing research services and treatment to patients of 
CENTER in all offices and facilities to which Research Coordinator is assigned; 
An independent search of the Internet resulted m separate websites for the Petitioner and See 
4 
Matter ojC-C-0-T-, P.A. 
(ii) The timely submission, keeping and maintaining, or causing to be kept and 
maintained, appropriate records, reports, claims, and correspondence necessary 
and appropriate in connection with all professional medical research services 
rendered by Research Coordinator under this Agreement including, but not 
limited to, information on the medical records and services provided and 
financial information generated therefrom, all in accordance with CENTER's 
policies and protocols regarding medical records; 
(iii) Providing, as may be requested by CENTER, administrative services to 
CENTER in connection with CENTER's business; 
(iv) Promoting, to the extent permitted by law and the applicable canons of 
professional ethics, the professional practice of CENTER; and 
(v) Attending to the extent reasonable and at a minimum to the extent necessary to 
abide by the requirements of Research Coordinator's professional conventions, 
seminars and functions of professional societies necessary to maintain and 
improve Research Coordinator's professional skills. 
The duties listed in the agreement differ significantly from the duties provided in the Petitioner's 
support letter. For example, while the duties in the employment agreement include treatment of patients 
in multiple locations, administrative duties, and attending functions of professional societies, the duties 
provided in the support letter made no mention of such duties. 
Furthermore, the duties listed in the agreement strongly suggest that the Beneficiary would be providing 
services in locations other than the Petitioner's location stated on the petition.4 See paragraph (i) of the 
agreement. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) states, in pertinent part: 
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be 
performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an 
itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with 
USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies 
as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes 
of this paragraph. 
The itinerary language at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), with its use of the mandatory "must" and its 
inclusion in the subsection "Filing of petitions," establishes that the itinerary as there defined is a 
material and necessary document for an H -1 B petition involving employment at multiple locations, 
and that such a petition may not be approved for any employment period for which there is not 
submitted at least the employment dates and locations. Here, given the indications in the record that 
4 This is not withstanding the Petitioner's statement at page 4, Part 5 of the Form I-129 that the Beneficiary would not 
work off-site. 
Matter of C-C-0- T-, P.A. 
the Beneficiary would work at multiple locations at some point during the requested period of 
employment and as the Petitioner did not provide this initial required evidence when it filed the 
Form I-129 in this matter, the petition must also be denied on this additional basis. 
In addition, while the Petitioner states on the petition and in its support letter that the Beneficiary 
would be employed on a part-time basis, the employment agreement, which was executed after the 
petition was approved for part-time employment, states that the employment offered is full-time. 
The Petitioner references "Schedule A" that is attached to the agreement, which indicates that the 
employment is part-time. The Petitioner asserts that this inconsistency is due to a typographical 
error. We note that while the agreement is signed both by the Petitioner's representatives and the 
Beneficiary, the "Schedule A" attachment is an unsigned and undated document. Furthermore, even 
if the inconsistency was caused by a typographical error, neither the Petitioner nor the Beneficiary 
has explained why they would execute an agreement containing inaccurate information. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submitted another version of the duties of the proffered position in a 
document entitled "Addendum to Contract: Job Duties of a Medical Researcher" as follows 
(verbatim): 
• Preparing for study initiation 
• Obtaining physician signatures 
• Recruiting subjects 
• Screening and scheduling subjects 
• Getting subject consent 
• Educating subjects about protocol expectation for them 
• Performing study/protocol procedures in a detailed, accurate manner 
• Maintaining study files 
• Tracking subjects, avoiding lost-to-follow-up 
• Documenting an adverse even, including: 
o describing the event 
o severity and frequency 
o treatment 
o resolution 
• Processing and shipping lab work 
• Maintaining communication and correspondence (by telephone, email, fax, etc.) 
with subjects, sponsor, monitor and other site study personnel, including: 
o IRB 
o Office of Sponsored Projects 
o Research Accounting 
• Completing case report forms (CEFs) for PI review and approval 
• Preparing site for monitoring visit and I or any audits from regulatory authorities. 
• Helping study monitors with CRF corrections (Hint: Using black ink, put a single 
line through incorrect information so that others can still read the original entry. 
Add your signature and date of this change. Never use "white out" liquid 
(b)(6)
Matter ojC-C-0-T-, P.A. 
correction fluid to make changes on regulatory or other documents including IRB 
and FDA forms.) 
• Maintaining study-specific supplies 
• Preparing for study closure and archiving 
• Marketing for new clinical studies 
• Attend investigator meetings if required. 
• Attend internal weekly meetings, study related meeting at hospitals, 
referring 
physician offices etc. 
• Depending on the circumstances, he/she may be given additional administrative 
responsibilities including monthly invoicing, account management and regulatory 
paperwork. 
• Administrative tasks include printing, copying scanning, phone calls, shipping, 
creating documents, forms, files, filing, organizing, etc. 
• Workstation must be maintained in an orderly fashion at all times 
• Other duties may be assigned at any time at the discretion of your supervisor 
• All hours will be documented by clocking in and out on the time clock in the 
kitchen area 
• Worked hours must be self-monitored as no unauthorized overtime will be 
allowed 
• Any tasks warrantying overtime hours must be preapproved by your supervisor 
• Office hours are 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday 
On appeal, the Petitioner also submitted another affidavit from its president, dated 
July 20, 2015, in which he stated that "the contract signed and dated on 9/23114 by both [himself and 
the Beneficiary] was erroneously generated by [his] clerical staff after request from the US Embassy in 
' 5 further stated that the duties of the proffered position of medical researcher 
"include all of the job duties listed on [the addendum] attached to this affidavit." 
The duties submitted on appeal differ significantly both from the duties provided in the Petitioner's 
support letter and from the duties provided in response to the Director's NOIR. Notably, the duties 
provided on appeal include recruiting and marketing duties which were not listed in the previous 
versions of the duties. 
On appeal, a petitioner cannot offer a new positiOn to the beneficiary, or materially change a 
position's title, its level of authority within the organizational hierarchy, the associated job 
responsibilities, or the requirements of the position. The petitioner must establish that the position 
5 Depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a letter, USCIS may give the document more or less persuasive 
weight in a proceeding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The 
BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and 
documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a 
greater need for the Petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Matter ofC-C-0-T-, P.A. 
offered to the beneficiary when the petition was filed merits classification for the benefit sought. 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See In re Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
While the Petitioner provides different versions of the duties of the proffered position, it provides no 
explanation regarding the inconsistencies in the duties in these various versions. The Petitioner is 
obligated to clarify the inconsistent and conflicting information by independent and objective 
evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Simply asserting that 
inconsistencies were a clerical error does not qualify as independent and objective evidence. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. In re Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
Furthermore, evidence that the Petitioner creates after USCIS points out the deficiencies and 
inconsistencies in the petition will not be considered independent and objective evidence. 
Necessarily, independent and objective evidence would be evidence that is contemporaneous with 
the event to be proven and existent at the time of the director's notice. 
USCIS regulations affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit It IS 
seeking at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1). A visa petition may not be 
approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner or the beneficiary becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 248. A 
petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See In re Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 176. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner provided inconsistent and inaccurate information in this 
proceeding. An inaccurate statement anywhere on the Form 1-129 or in the evidence submitted in 
connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(IO)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
When considered both separately and in the aggregate, we find that the evidence submitted by the 
Petitioner in response to the NOIR and on appeal does not overcome the Director's decision 
revoking approval of the petition. Consequently we affirm the Director's May 26, 2015, decision 
revoking its approval pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A). 6 
6 The consular return indicates that the Beneficiary's spouse and two children would accompany him to the United 
States. We note that the 2015 poverty threshold for a four-person family in the State of Texas is $24,250. See Annual 
Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. 3236, 3237 (Jan. 22, 2015). The Form I-129 states that the 
Beneficiary would work "20-30" hours per week at a wage of $18.45 per hour. However, a 20-hour workweek 
compensated at $18.45 per hour would place the Beneficiary and his family beneath the poverty threshold for a four­
person family. In order to exceed the poverty threshold at a wage of $18.45 per hour, the Beneficiary would have to 
work at least l ,314 hours per year, or 25 hours per week. However, because the issue of inadmissibility is not before us, 
we will not analyze this issue further. We do wish to emphasize, however, that if the Petitioner is able to overcome the 
Director's revocation decision at some point in the future, it would still be obliged to demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
and his family members would be unlikely to become public charges in order to avoid inadmissibility pursuant to section 
Matter ofC-C-0-T-, P.A. 
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-C-0-T-, P.A., ID# 15367 (AAO Feb. 8, 2016) 
212(a)(4)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). 
9