remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-S-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 30, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, an IT consulting firm, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior 
software consultant" under the H-1B 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-IB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a 
position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical Jlpplication 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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the evidence of record 
did not establish that the Petitioner had specialty occupation work available for the Beneficiary for 
the employment period specified in the petition. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a motion to 
reopen and a motion to reconsider, and the Director denied the combined motion. Thereafter, the 
Petitiqner filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director denied the second 
motion, and affirmed its decision to deny the petition. 
The matter before us is the denial of the second motion. Our preliminary review of the record 
revealed a substantive error in the disposition of the second motion. We will withdraw the 
Director's decision on the second motion and remand the matter for further proceedings. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD 
The record establishes the following salient facts: 
• On August 15, 2014, the Petitioner filed the second combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. 
• On December 1, 2014, the Director issued a request for additional evidence (RFE). 
• The RFE gave the Petitioner 87 days to respond; the Petitioner had until February 26, 2015 to 
file a response. 
• The Director denied the combined motion on May 7, 2015, stating, in part: 
On December 1, 2014, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 
requested additional documentary evidence to establish that the project [upon 
(b)(6)
Matter of F-S-S-, Inc. 
which the Petitioner attested the Beneficiary would work] required the holder of a 
baccalaureate degree to perform the job duties. To date, USCIS has not received a 
response to that request. 
• The record contains a copy of the RFE with "NO RESPONSE" stamped in red ink. 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's statement that USCIS had not received a 
response to the RFE was not true. In support, the Petitioner provided copies of 
documentation establishing that its RFE reply was delivered to the Vermont Service Center at 10:28 
a.m. on Monday, February 9, 2015. 
Upon review, it appears that the Petitioner did submit a timely response to the RFE. Specifically, the 
record contains a brief identifying the receipt number for the second motion, and referring to the 
Director's RFE, along with supporting evidence. Further, the brief bears a Vermont Service Center 
date stamp consistent with the Petitioner's delivery information. The date stamp reads: 
Received 
FEB 09 2015 
vsc- 21 
Because the Director did not consider the Petitioner's response to the RFE, and the response includes 
a legal brief and substantive documentation pertinent to the combined motion, we will remand this 
matter to the Director to fully consider the Petitioner's entire response to the RFE as received at the 
Vermont Service Center on February 9, 2015, and to render a new decision on the second motion. 
Further, if the Director's new decision on the motion is adverse to the Petitioner, the Director shall 
certify it to us for review. 1 
III. CONCLUSION 
The matter will be remanded to the Director for further review. 
ORDER: The May 7, 2015, decision of the Director, Vermont Service Center, is withdrawn. 
The matter is remanded to the Director, Vermont Service Center, for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for entry of a new decision, 
which, if adverse, shall be certified to us for review. 
Cite as Matter of F-S-S-, Inc., ID# 17965 (AAO Aug. 30, 20 16) 
1 
This instruction is not intended to suggest that the Director reach a particular outcome on the merits of the motion. 
2