remanded H-1B Case: Contract Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12335738 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 19, 2021 
The Petitioner, a global contract research organization, 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)(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. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that 1) it had an employer-employee 
relationship with the Beneficiary and 2) the Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty 
occupation for the requested period of intended employment. While this appeal was pending, the U.S . 
District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in ltserve Alliance, Inc. v. Cissna, --­
F.Supp.3d ---, 2020 WL 1150186 (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Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance relating to H-lB petitions filed for 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. 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 . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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 17, 2020), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda . 
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