remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16130730 
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: APR. 27, 2021 
The Petitioner, a computer systems design services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software developer, application" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations.1 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary is qualified for the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in the decision. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal,2 we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is an entity in active and good standing. 
A petitioner must establish that it is eligible for the benefit request at the time of filing and must 
continue to be eligible through adjudication.3 The issue of whether the Petitioner is a business in good 
standing is material to its eligibility for the requested benefit. An H-lB petition may be approved only 
for the period of intended employment for which the petitioning entity would be doing business as 
described in the petition. If a petitioner is not actually in business, it cannot qualify as an entity with 
standing to file an H-lB petition.4 Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(ii) addresses 
the grounds for automatic revocation of the approval of a petition and states, in pertinent part, that the 
"approval of any petition is immediately and automatically revoked if the petitioner goes out of 
business." It logically flows that a petitioner must be doing and continue to do business for the director 
to grant the petition. If the petitioner were not in business and the director granted the petition, it 
would result in the absurd result of the approved petition immediately and automatically being revoked 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b). 
4 See generally 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(A)-(D). 
the instant it was approved.5 Moreover, if a petitioner is no longer in business, then a bona fide job 
offer would not exist to support the petition. 
According to the petition, the Beneficiary's place of employment will be I I California. 
Although the California Secretary of State's business search website confirms that the Petitioner was 
registered as a business in 2017, it also states that the Petitioner's status is "FTB Forfeited," indicating 
the Petitioner may no longer be authorized to transact business in California.6 The record also states 
that the Petitioner is incorporated in the state of Delaware. Public records confirm that the Petitioner 
was incorporated in 2017 but does not establish that Petitioner is in active and good standing.7 As a 
result we are unable to determine that the Petitioner is a business in good standing where it transacts 
business and where it is incorporated. 
To the extent the Petitioner establishes on remand that it has maintained active and good standing, we 
will address the Director's decision. While the Director did not address specialty occupation, we note 
we are required to follow long-standing legal standards and determine first, whether the proffered 
position qualifies for classification as a specialty occupation, and second, whether the Beneficiary was 
qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was filed.8 As presently 
constituted, the record demonstrates that the proffered position is a specialty occupation under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) and (iii){A). Specifically, we conclude that the nature of the specific duties 
is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its equivalent, as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The record includes a description of the job duties and an 
explanation of the Beneficiary's proposed work. The proposed duties, when reviewed within the 
context of the Petitioner's business operations, are sufficient to demonstrate that the duties of the 
position require a "body of highly specialized knowledge" attained through a precise and specific 
course of study that relates directly and closely to the proffered position. With this said, the record 
also establishes that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the proffered position by 
holding a foreign degree determined to be equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate or higher degree required 
by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university.9 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the issue of whether the Petitioner 
has maintained active and good standing and enter a new decision. The Director may request any 
additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(ii). 
6 See California Secretary of State Business Search, https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov (last visited April 27, 2021). 
7 See State of Delaware Department of State: Division of Corporations, 
https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (last visited April 27, 2021). 
8 Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558,560 (Comm'r 1988) ('The facts ofa beneficiary's background 
only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner intends to employ him falls within [a specialty 
occupation]."). 
9 See Section 214(i)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(C)(2). 
2