remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V- LLC 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2019 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner , an information technology services firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary 
as a "programmer analyst" 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 approved the petition , but later revoked the approval 
after serving a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) . In the revocation, the Director concluded that the 
record did not establish that (1) there was sufficient in-house work available for the Beneficiary ; and 
(2) the Petitioner established eligibility at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, and continues to assert its eligibility. Upon de nova review, 
the Director's decision to revoke the approval of the petition is withdrawn. The matter will be 
remanded to the Director for further consideration and action. 
I. REVOCATION AUTHORITY 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(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: 
(I) 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 
Matter of V- LLC 
( 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 
The Director's statements in the NOIR noting deficiencies in the record at the time of filing were 
inadequate to notify the Petitioner of her intent to revoke the approval of the petition in accordance 
with the provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii), and with the notice of derogatory information 
provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director for 
further review of the record and a new decision. However, as will be briefly discussed, the record as 
currently constituted does not establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
To comply with the notice requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii), a director's decision to revoke 
a previously approved petition must be preceded by a NOIR which "shall contain a detailed statement 
of the grounds for the revocation." In the instant case, the Director issued a NOIR indicating, among 
other things, that USCIS had received additional information regarding the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for the H-1 B classification. The Director notified the Petitioner of her intention to revoke the petition 
on the basis that the approval of the petition violated the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h) or involved 
gross error. 1 The Director revoked the petition after reviewing the Petitioner's response to the NOIR. 
The Director concluded in her revocation notice that based on the record, the Petitioner had violated 
the H-lB requirements of section 10l(a)(l5)(H) of the Act and section 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h) or involved 
gross error. 2 
1 See 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)(l l )(iii)(A)(5). 
2 Id. 
2 
Matter of V- LLC 
After careful consideration, we conclude that the Director's NOIR did not satisfy the notice and 
decision requirements in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B). In the NOIR, the Director 
described the Petitioner's business operations as an information technology services firm, briefly 
discussed deficiencies with some of the contractual evidence presented by the Petitioner, and indicated 
that the evidence in the record of proceedings was insufficient to establish that the proffered position 
qualified as a specialty occupation, or that there was sufficient work available for the entire validity 
period requested. However, she did not provide a sufficiently detailed statement of the grounds for 
the revocation in the NOIR, or in the revocation. 
Moreover, while the Director alluded to new information received by USCIS after the approval of the 
petition regarding the Beneficiary's eligibility for the H-1B classification within the NOIR and 
revocation notice, she did not further identify the specifics of this new information, or detail how the 
new information adversely impacted the Petitioner's claim of eligibility in this matter. Therefore, we 
also conclude that the Director did not provide sufficient notice to the Petitioner in order to offer it an 
opportunity to rebut the new information and present information before the issuance of the revocation 
notice as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). 
Lastly, we note that we conduct de nova review on appeal. As presently constituted, the record does 
not reflect that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation under at least one of the four 
regulatory specialty-occupation criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(l)-(4). 
Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Director for issuance of a new decision based on this 
petition's record of proceedings. 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. 
Cite as Matter of V- LLC, ID# 3198802 (AAO Oct. 31, 2019) 
3