remanded H-1B Case: Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10876161 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 2, 2020 
The Petitioner, a consulting, product implementation and staffing provider, seeks to temporarily employ 
the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding in part that the Petitioner 
did not establish an employer -employee relationship with the Beneficiary. The Director also 
concluded that based on a lack of corroborating material, to include contracts, the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated it would have qualifying work available for the Beneficiary . While this appeal was 
pending, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in Itserve All., Inc. v. 
Cissna, 443 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2020). Subsequently , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance relating to H-lB petitions filed for workers who 
will be employed at one or more third-party worksites, and directed its officers to apply the existing 
regulatory definition at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(4)(ii) to assess whether a petitioner and a beneficiary have 
an employer-employee relationship . 1 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 2 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we 
conclude that a remand is warranted in this case in part based on the new USCIS policy guidance. 
Because this case is affected by the new policy guidance, we find it appropriate to remand the matter 
for the Director to consider the question anew and to adjudicate in the first instance any additional 
issues as may be necessary and appropriate . Accordingly , the following order shall be issued. 
1 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114 , Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 2 (June I 7, 2020), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2