dismissed H-1B Case: Religion

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19053287 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 27, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "parochial vicar" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 1 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 California Service Center Director denied the H-lB petition,2 the request to change the 
Beneficiary's status and the extension of the Beneficiary's stay in the United States. The Director also 
concluded that the Beneficiary had made a willful material misrepresentation and thus, was 
inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and 
asserts that the Director erred by denying the extension of stay and change of status. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 3 The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in 
this matter de novo.4 Upon de nova review, we will reject the appeal. 
First, since the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the H-lB visa classification, any request 
for a change of status based on an approval of the H-1 B petition is moot. Second, an "extension of 
stay" must be distinguished from an extension of H-lB status, which occurs through a "petition 
extension." 5 Although those seeking H-1 B status are currently permitted to file one form to request a 
petition extension , extension of stay, and change of status, they are still separate determinations . 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(14); 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c) ; 8 C.F.R. § 248.3(a); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(15)(i) . In 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 As required, the Director issued a separate determination detailing the reasons for the denial of the H-lB petition. The 
Petitioner appealed the Director 's decision and we issued a separate decision on the appeal of the denial of the H-lB 
petition. 
3 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
4 See Matter of Christo 's Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
5 As the Beneficiary has not previously held H-lB status, the Beneficiary cannot extend H-lB status through an H-lB 
petition extension. 
addition, 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( l 5)(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)(14) 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. Pursuant 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 I-129 or Fom1 I-539 . 
Thus, any denial of an extension of stay request is not within our jurisdiction. 
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). The 
Petitioner points to no authority for this office to overturn the Director's denial of the Beneficiary's 
extension of stay or to address the Director's conclusions regarding the Beneficiary's admissibility 
into the United States. As there is no legal basis for our jurisdiction over the Petitioner's requests the 
appeal must be rejected . 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
2