dismissed H-1B Case: Systems Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16810407 
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: July 6, 2021 
The Petitioner, a nationwidec=] parts and supply chain company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "senior systems administrator" 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 Director of the Texas Service Center revoked the approval after serving a notice of intent to revoke 
(NOIR). In the revocation, the Director concluded that the approval of the petition involved gross 
error, as the record did not establish that the Beneficiary was exempt from the H-lB numerical 
limitation . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the petition should not have been revoked based on 
principles of equitable estoppel. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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)(l l)(iii), which states, in relevant part, 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: 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
(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. If the 
petition is revoked in part, the remainder of the petition shall remain approved 
and a revised approval notice shall be sent to the petitioner with the revocation 
notice. 
H-lB visas are statutorily capped at 65,000 per year (H-lB cap) but, a petitioner may seek a cap 
exemption for beneficiaries who have "earned a master's or higher degree from a United States 
institution of higher education (as defined in . . . 20 U.S.C. l00l(a)) . . . . " See section 214(g)(l)(A) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(l)(A) (setting the 65,000 cap); section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 84(g)(5)(C) (providing for 20,000 "master's cap" exemptions). An "institution of higher 
education," in tum, is defined, among other requirements, as a public or nonprofit educational 
institution that: 
[J]s accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not 
so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such 
an agency or association that has been recognized by the [U.S. Secretary of Education] 
for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there 
is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of 
such an agency or association within a reasonable time. 
20 U.S.C. § lO0l(a) (2012) (originally enacted as the Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-
329, 79 Stat. 1219) ("Higher Education Act") (emphasis added). USCIS construes these provisions to 
require that the institution's qualifications must be established at the time the degree is earned. See 
Matter of A-T- Inc, Adopted Decision 2017-04 (AAO May 23, 2017). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the entire record, 3 we have determined that the Petitioner has not overcome the basis 
for the Director's revocation of the petition by demonstrating that the Beneficiary was qualified for a 
master's cap exemption . 
In the decision, the Director thoroughly discussed the basis for revoking the petition's approval in 
accordance with the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii). Likewise, the Director's statements 
in the NOIR noting deficiencies in the record at the time of filing were adequate to notify the Petitioner 
of the intention to revoke the approval of the petition. The Director cited to the ground for revocation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5) and discussed the reasons for concluding that the approval of the 
petition involved gross error. The Director found that the petition should have been denied because 
the Petitioner had indicated it qualified for a master 's cap exemption but the Beneficiary did not have 
3 While we may not discuss every document submitted , we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
a master's degree or higher from a U.S. institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. § 
lO0l(a). 
Upon consideration of the record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision with the comments 
below. See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) ( citing Matter of Burbano, 20 
I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing 
tribunal decides that the facts and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately 
confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing officer, then the tribunal is free simply to 
adopt those findings" provided the tribunal's order reflects individualized attention to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not present new evidence or contest the Director's finding that approval 
of the petition involved gross error. Rather, the Petitioner reasserts that USCIS should be estopped 
from revoking the petition's approval because the prior approval was based on USCTS error. The 
Petitioner further asserts that they relied on USCIS's prior approvals of OPT and the H-lB petition, to 
their detriment. 
However, the record does not establish that the institution that awarded the Beneficiary his master's 
degree,I L was an accredited or preaccredited institution. The 
record contains multiple deficiery nltices and denials ofc=]s application for accreditation but at 
no time does the record indicate obtained any accreditation. Thus, any approvals of the H-1 B 
petition filed by the Petitioner on behalf of the Beneficiary under the master's cap exemption involved 
gross error. And, as the Director noted, because it was determined after the final receipt date that the 
Beneficiary was ineligible for a master's cap exemption, the Director must deny the petition without 
considering eligibility under the general H-lB cap. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(iv)(B). 
Further, we have no authority to apply the judicially devised doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude 
a USCIS component from undertaking a lawful course of action that it is empowered to pursue by 
statute and regulation. See Matter of Hernandez-Puente, 20 T&N Dec. 335, 338-39 (BIA 1991 ). 
Estoppel is an equitable form ofrelief that is available only through the courts. There is no delegation 
of authority, statute, regulation, or other law that permits us to apply this doctrine to the cases before 
us. Id. Because no other issues were presented on appeal, we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3