dismissed H-1B Case: Software Publishing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 03, 2024 In Re: 31301563 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(B), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(iii)(A)(3) because the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the approved petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. REVOCATION 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii) , which states the following: 
(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 petition 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. 
The regulations require that USCIS provide notice consisting of a detailed statement of the grounds 
for revocation of petition approval and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the 
notice of intent to revoke. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, claiming to be a software publisher employing 41 people, filed the underlying petition 
on behalf of the Beneficiary seeking to amend the terms and conditions of employment and the stay 
of the Beneficiary. After initially approving the petition, the Director notified the Petitioner of their 
intent to revoke (ITR) the approval of the petition. The Petitioner's response to the ITR did not rebut 
or even address the derogatory information the Director disclosed to them. Accordingly, the Director 
revoked the petition's approval. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's decision to revoke the petition's approval under 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(3) because the petition's terms and conditions were violated. 
Specifically, the violation of the petition's terms and conditions was uncovered during an 
administrative site visit conducted after the petition's approval. The results of the administrative site 
visit indicated that the Petitioner improperly placed the Beneficiary at the work location more than 10 
months prior to when it filed the underlying petition to amend a prior petition approval and the 
Beneficiary's H-1 B stay. A change in a beneficiary's authorized place of employment to geographical 
areas not covered by a certified ET A 903 SE, Labor Condition Application for N onimmigrant Workers 
(LCA) is a material change requiring that a petitioner immediately notify USCIS and file an amended 
or new H-lB petition along with a corresponding LCA certified by U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). 
See Matter ofSimeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I&N Dec. 542,549 (AAO 2015). 
The Petitioner did not immediately notify USCIS of the material change in work location. Instead, it 
inexplicably delayed the filing of the amendment until the Beneficiary had already been working at 
the new work location for 10 months. Moreover, the Petitioner does not address or rebut the 
administrative site visit's results. In fact, the Petitioner submitted paystubs and a lease agreement 
indicating the Beneficiary was residing inl !commencing sometime in May or June of 2023. 
Or in other words, the Petitioner's evidence supports the Beneficiary commenced work at the new 
work location 10 months before the Petitioner filed the underlying petition. And although the 
Petitioner provided evidence of the Beneficiary's employment and residence in the I I area, this 
evidence was not relevant to, did not address, or did not rebut the information uncovered during the 
administrative site visit because it pre-dated June 2023, when the Petitioner commenced work at the 
new work location. And the screen shots from Google Maps the Petitioner provided showing distances 
between the Petitioner's principal place of business and the Beneficiary's residential addresses are not 
material, relevant, or probative because the work location the Petitioner has worked at in the 10 months 
2 
prior to the filing of the petition is far outside the geographical or commutable area of its principal 
place of business or the corporate housing it affords to employees like the Beneficiary. Moreover, 
whilst the Petitioner provided leases for residential apartments it leased for its employees to reside in 
thel Iarea, it is not sufficiently clear in the record how the leases address or rebut the Beneficiary's 
presence and work in the new work location for 10 months prior to the filing of the underlying petition. 
The unrebutted facts uncovered during the administrative site visit demonstrate the petition's terms 
and conditions were violated by the Petitioner when it placed the Beneficiary at the work location 
more than 10 months before it filed the underlying petition accompanied by a corresponding LCA. 
This necessitates the revocation of the petition's approval. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here. The appeal 
must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3