dismissed H-1B Case: Software Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13764295 
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: JUN. 23, 2021 
The Petitioner, a technology company, seeks to extend the temporary employment of the Beneficiary 
as a "software engineer II" 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 California Service Center Director approved the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
filed on the Beneficiary's behalf, but denied the request to extend 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. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. We will reject the appeal. 
We note that an "extension of stay" must be distinguished from an extension of H-1B 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 determinations. 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-1B 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-1B classification. Pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214 .l(c)(5) , there 
is no appeal from the Director's denial of an application for extension of stay filed on Fonn 1-129 or 
Form 1-539. 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