remanded H-1B Case: Accounting

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 7, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an accounting, auditing, and tax consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary as an "audit assistant" under the H-1 B 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-1B 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 ofhighly 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 concluded that the evidence in the record did not establish that: (1) the Petitioner 
complied with the itinerary requirement under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B); (2) the Petitioner would 
maintain the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary; or (3) the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
asserts that it has satisfied all evidentiary requirements. 
',Upon review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the petition for entry of a new 
decision. 
I. PROFFERED POSITION 
The Petitioner stated that its business model is to form teams of qualified professionals who will 
work together, both onsite at its offices and, if applicable under the terms of a specific client 
engagement, at client sites in order to provide advisory services. The Petitioner is not a staffing 
company or job placement agency; rather, it is one of the nation's leading professional services firms 
with revenues in excess of $16.1 billion for the most recent fiscal year. The Petitioner indicates that 
the Beneficiary will work onsite at its offices in California as well as at the offices of its 
client, located in California. The labor condition application 
(LCA) indicates that the Beneficiary would work in California, but lists no other place of 
employment. 
(b)(6)
Matter of 
II. THE DIRECTOR'S GROUNDS FOR DENIAL 
Based upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal 
addressing the grounds for the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has overcome the 
bases of the pirector's denial. Specifically, the totality of evidence now establishes that the 
Petitioner will have the requisite employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary and the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. Further, the evidence of record also 
establishes that the Petitioner has satisfied the itinerary requirement. As such, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision with respect to these issues. 
III. LABOR CONDITION APPLICATION 
However, although not addressed in the Director's decision, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid 
LCA that corresponds to all of the proposed work locations. Accordingly, we will instruct the 
Director to review this issue on remand and request any additional evidence deemed necessary. 
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations state that "[ e ]ach LCA shall state ... [t]he places of 
intended employment." 20 C.F.R. § 655.730(c)(4) (emphasis added). "Place of employment" is 
defined as "the worksite or physical location where the work actually is performed by the H-1 B ... 
nonimmigrant." 20 C.F.R. § 655.715. Moreover, the instructions require that the employer list the 
place of intended employment "with as much geographic specificity as possible" and notes that the 
employer may identify up to three pllysical locations, including street address, city, county, state, 
and zip code, where work will be performed. Petitioners who know that an employee will be 
working at additional worksites at the time of filing must include all worksites on ETA Form 
9035. Failure to do this will result in a finding that the employer did not file an LCA that supports 
the H-1B petition. 
In this case, the Form I-129 and LCA list the work location as 
CA In addition, section G of the LCA states that the Beneficiary's only intended work 
site is the aforementioned Petitioner location in California. However, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence indicating that a portion of the Beneficiary's duties will be performed at its 
client's office in California, which is not in the same metropolitan statistical area 
as Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid LCA that corresponds to all of the 
proposed work locations. 
While DOL is the agency that certifies LCA applications before they are submitted to USCIS, DOL 
regulations note that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (i.e., its immigration benefits 
branch, USCIS) is the department responsible for determining whether the content of an LCA filed 
for a particular Form I-129 actually supports that petition. The regulations state, in pertinent part: 
For H-1B visas ... DHS accepts the employer's petition (DHS Form I-129) with the 
DOL certified LCA attached. In doing so, the DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the occupation 
2 
(b)(6)
--- ----------·----
Matter of 
named in the [LCA] is a specialty occupation or whether the individual is a fashion 
model of distinguished merit and ability, and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements of H -1 B visa classification. 
20 C.P.R. § 655.705(b) (emphasis added). 
The regulation at 20 C.P.R. § 655.705(b) requires that USCIS ensure that an LCA actually supports 
the H-1B petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted a valid 
LCA that corresponds to all of the proposed work locations. 
Therefore, we will remand this matter to the Director for a new decision, as the Director did not 
discuss whether the Petitioner submitted a valid LCA corresponding with the petition. The Director 
should request any additional evidence deemed warranted to address the deficiencies noted with 
respect to this issue. As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the 
Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing discussion, although the Director's decision will be withdrawn, the evidence 
of record as presently constituted does not establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Accordingly, 
we will remand this matter to the Director for further action and entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director, California Service Center, is withdrawn. The 
petition is remanded to the Director, California Service Center, for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new 
decision. 
Cite as M,atter of ID# 198586 (AAO Feb. 7, 2017) 
3