remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4810407 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 28, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology services provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily as a "programmer analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. 1 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 Vermont Service Center Director initially approved the petition, then after U.S . Citizenship and 
Immigration Services officers performed a site visit, the Director issued an intent to revoke (ITR) the 
petition's approval , and subsequently revoked that approval. 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 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because it does not appear that the petition 's approval was properly revoked. The Petitioner, located 
in New Jersey , was scheduled to perform work for I I ( end-client) relating to two 
separate projects. 
The first project was designed for all of the Petitioner's personnel to work at the end-client's location 
in Oklahoma. The second project did not have any such work location restrictions. The Statement of 
Work executed between the Petitioner and the end-client specified that the work would occur at the 
Petitioner's location . Although it is not stated, it appears the Director ascertained from the site visit 
at the end-client's worksite that all of the work between these two entities could only be performed at 
the client's location. The Director did not offer enough infonnation to the Petitioner in the ITR relating 
to the source of its information that the work would only occur in Oklahoma. The ITR did not 
sufficiently discuss the material within the record that reflected the work would occur at the 
Petitioner's location. Instead, the Director only stated that the Petitioner's "in-house work projects 
had been plagiarized from several sources." Responding to the ITR, the Petitioner discussed that the 
work would occur at its location. The Director should evaluate those statements to determine if those 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
claims when combined with the evidence in the record sufficiently addresses the issues listed in the 
ITR. 
Turning to the plagiarized material, while the Director's notice revoking the petition's approval 
correctly stated the Petitioner didn't respond to the allegation of plagiarism in the response to the ITR, 
the Director did not offer sufficient information in order for the Petitioner to respond. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B) provides that a "notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation .... " We conclude that the ITR did not offer sufficient 
detail relating to any plagiarized material in the record. In the event the Director wishes to revoke this 
petition's approval relating to the plagiarized material, it should identify the material it alleges was 
plagiarized as well as the original resources from which the Petitioner is supposed to have copied that 
material. 
However, the record of proceeding is not sufficiently developed to allow us to determine whether the 
Petitioner has demonstrated the substantive nature of the proffered position. The Director should 
consider the proffered position's duties to determine if those functions preponderantly reflect the work 
the Beneficiary would likely perform while working on the stated project, and whether the Petitioner 
provided a labor certification application that corresponds with and supports the petition. 3 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to consider the specialty-occupation and 
labor condition application issues and enter a new decision. 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. 
3 See 20 C.F.R. ~ 655.705(6) (clearly stating, "In [accepting an employer's petition with the DOL-certified LCA attached]. 
the DHS determines whether the petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition, whether the 
occupation named in the labor condition application is a specialty occupation ... , and whether the qualifications of the 
nonimmigrant meet the statutory requirements for H-lB visa classification."). See also Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 l&N 
Dec. 542,546 n.6 (AAO 2015). 
2