remanded H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12008860 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 21, 2021 
The Petitioner , a food distribution company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"corporate accountant" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . 
See 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. 
I. BACKGROUND 
Although the Director of the Vermont Service Center initially approved the petition, she ultimately 
revoked the petition's approval on the basis of her determination that the Petitioner had violated the 
terms and conditions of the approved petition. The Petitioner appealed that decision, and we withdrew 
it because we identified additional eligibility issues that warranted further exploration . We therefore 
remanded the matter for further action and entry of a new decision. 1 
The Director revoked the petition's approval a second time, and the Petitioner filed another appeal. 
We again withdrew the Director 's decision, this time on procedural grounds alone, pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)-(B), because she issued a request for additional evidence (RFE) instead 
of the requisite notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition's approval. 2 
The Director issued the requisite NOIR and revoked the approval a third time, and the matter is before 
us on appeal for a third time. We must once more withdraw the Director ' s decision and remand the 
matter for further action and entry of a new decision - again, on procedural grounds alone . 
1 For additional information see our first remand decision, which we issued on October 6, 2017. 
2 For additional information see our second remand decision, which we issued on October 2, 2019. 
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. Revocation Authority 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1B petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(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: 
(]) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition, or if the beneficiary is no longer receiving 
training as 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. 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. 
B. Specialty Occupation 
Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the term "specialty occupation" as an 
occupation that requires: 
(A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, 
and 
(B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its 
equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States. 
2 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates this statutory definition, but adds a 
non-exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, the regulations provide that the proffered 
position must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation: 
( I) A baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum 
requirement for entry into the particular position; 
(2) The degree requirement is common to the industry in parallel positions among 
similar organizations or, in the alternative, an employer may show that its 
particular position is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an 
individual with a degree; 
(3) The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position; or 
( 4) The nature of the specific duties [is] so specialized and complex that knowledge 
required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a 
baccalaureate or higher degree. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). We have consistently interpreted the term "degree" to mean not just 
any baccalaureate or higher degree, but one in a specific specialty that is directly related to the 
proposed position. See Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 147 (1st Cir. 2007) (describing 
"a degree requirement in a specific specialty" as "one that relates directly to the duties and 
responsibilities of a particular position"); Defensor v. Meissner, 201 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 2000). 
III. DISCUSSION 
As noted briefly above, we have remanded this matter twice, and this is now the third time it has come 
before us on appeal. In her October 2019 NOIR, 3 the Director correctly laid out the deficiencies 
present in record of proceeding regarding: ( 1) the proffered position's questionable status as a specialty 
occupation; and (2) the uncertainties over whether the labor condition application (LCA) corresponds 
to and supports the H-1B petition, as required. The Director did not, however, go on to connect those 
deficiencies to any of the H-1B revocation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A). 
Those two issues ( specialty occupation and LCA correspondence) are not, in and of themselves, 
grounds upon which an approved petition may be revoked. Instead, if the answers to those two 
questions are found to be in the negative (i.e., the proffered position is not a specialty occupation and 
the LCA does not correspond), the basis upon which to revoke the petition's approval would actually 
be one of the five revocation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)(l l )(iii)(A). For example, in 
the instant case, it would appear as though the Director should have proposed revoking in the NOIR, 
and then revoked in the final decision, the approval of the petition pursuant to the fifth revocation 
criterion - 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5) - because if the proffered position is not a specialty 
occupation and the LCA does not correspond to and support the H-1 B petition, then we would presume 
3 The Director's October 2019 NOIR was issued in response to our second remand. 
3 
the petition's original approval violated section (h) of8 C.F.R. § 214.2 or involved gross error.4 Since 
the Director's NOIR did not identify one of the five revocation criteria enumerated at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A), it did not satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B) and the matter must 
be remanded for issuance of a new NOIR that satisfies these requirements. 
Moreover, and as noted by the Petitioner on appeal, the Director did not specifically identify at least 
one of the five H-1B revocation criteria in her decision, either. Instead, the Director cited to the 
revocation criteria relevant to another nonimmigrant visa category. 5 
We are therefore withdrawing the Director's decision and remanding this matter for further processing. 
The Director should: (1) issue a NOIR that specifically identifies at least one of the five H-1B 
revocation criteria, and (2) assuming she decides to issue another revocation, state the specific H-1B 
revocation criterion (or criteria) upon which she is revoking the petition's approval in her decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 Since the Director did not specifically identify one of the five revocation criteria we are, of course , merely making an 
assumption. lfthe Director meant to tie the specialty occupation and LCA issues to one of the other four revocation criteria 
she is obviously free to do so in her new NOIR and decision. 
5 The Director cited to 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(8)(iii) , which pertains to the O visa program . 
4