remanded H-1B Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 97 44626 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a computer and software consultancy company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "manager" under the H-IB 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 Director of the California Service Center approved the petition but later revoked its approval, 
concluding that (1) the petition was approved in gross error; (2) the record did not establish that the 
Petitioner and Beneficiary would maintain an employer-employee relationship throughout the duration 
of the requested H-lB validity period; and (3) the record did not establish that the proffered position 
is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence, and it contends that the petition's 
should be reinstated. The Director's decision will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for further 
consideration and action. 
I. REVOCATION AUTHORITY 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-IB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 11 )(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: 
(J) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner 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)( l 5)(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 .... 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i) states that: 
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory 
information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner is 
unaware, he/she shall be advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the 
information and present information in his/her own behalf before the decision is 
rendered .... 
II. ANALYSIS 
Although the Director's revocation decision references a notice of her intent to revoke (NOIR) the 
petition's approval, the record contains no evidence a NOIR was ever issued, and the Petitioner claims 
it never received such notice. Without issuing a NOIR, the Director did not provide the Petitioner 
with adequate notice of her intentions pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l6)(i) and 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B). 
The matter will therefore be remanded to the Director for further review and issuance of the requisite 
NOIR. 
The Director stated in her revocation decision that because USCIS had received additional information 
regarding the Beneficiary's eligibility for the H-lB classification, the petition was processed 
inadvertently and that its approval therefore violated the regulations or involved gross error. 1 The 
revocation decision therefore contains substantive information similar to that which would be 
contained in a NOIR, in that it outlines evidentiary deficiencies and requests additional evidence to 
cure those deficiencies, but it did not afford the Petitioner the requisite notice or opportunity to 
respond. 
Moreover, while the revocation notice alluded to additional information received by USCIS after the 
petition's approval regarding the Beneficiary's eligibility for H-lB classification, it also stated that the 
approval was inadvertently processed. As such, it is not entirely clear whether the inadvertently 
processed approval is the referenced "additional information" or whether other derogatory information 
exists. If derogatory information exists, the Director should identify this information and explain how 
it adversely impacts the Petitioner's claims of eligibility. The Director should then provide sufficient 
notice to the Petitioner in order to afford it the opportunity to rebut the new information and present 
1 The Director cites 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l 1 )(iii)(A)(5) as her ground for revocation. 
2 
information on its own behalf, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), before issuing any additional 
revocation notice. 
We therefore will remand this matter to the Director for issuance of a NOIR, and we express no opinion 
regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's revocation decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of 
a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3