remanded H-1B Case: Education

•denti.uingdata deleteel~-A
1,LJ 1 unwatT8l\'wY
prevent clear Y 1 rivacyinvasionof persona p
\'\JULieCOP'l
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: EAC 04 251 54058 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0'1 2001
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
f}_~~.b-
\){obert P. Wiemann, Chief
{Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
EAC 04 251 54058
Page 2
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was approved by the service center director. Based upon
information obtained from the beneficiary during her visa issuance process at the U.S. Embassy, the director
determined that the beneficiary was not clearly eligible for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director properly
served the petitioner with notice of his intent to revoke the approval of the visa petition and his reasons therefore,
and ultimately revoked the approval of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office
(AAO) on appeal. The decision of the director will be withdrawn and the matter will be remanded for further
consideration.
The petitioner is a privately funded learning institution that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a
teacher/senior staff. The petitioner, therefore, endeavors to classify the beneficiary as a nonimmigrant worker in
a specialty occupation pursuant to section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The director determined that the petitioner had not responded to the
Notice of Intent to Revoke and thus had not established that the beneficiary is qualified to perform a specialty
occupation.
On appeal, the petitioner's president states: "On February 4, 2006, the enclosed letter with accompanying
documentation was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail to the INS in response to a letter dated January 11,
2006, copy enclosed. The letter with documentation was received at the INS on February 6,2006 ...."
The record contains evidence that the petitioner's response to the director's January 11, 2006 Notice of Intent to
Revoke was delivered to the service center on February 6, 2006, which is within the 30 days specified on the
notice. In view of the foregoing, the matter will be remanded for the director to consider the petitioner's response
to the Notice of Intent to Revoke in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(B). The director may request any
additional evidence he deems necessary. The petitioner may also provide additional documentation within a
reasonable period to be determined by the director. Upon receipt of all evidence and representations, the director
will enter a new decision.
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded to him for further action and
consideration consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision that, if adverse to the
petitioner, is to be certified to the AAO for review.