remanded
H-1B
remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology
Decision Summary
The appeal was remanded because a relevant USCIS policy memorandum concerning workers at third-party worksites was rescinded while the appeal was pending. The AAO determined it was appropriate for the Director to reconsider the case and adjudicate it anew under the current policy guidance.
Criteria Discussed
Specialty Occupation Third-Party Worksites
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
In Re: 9504657
Appeal of California Service Center Decision
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB)
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office
Date: AUG. 26, 2020
The Petitioner, an information technology consulting firm, seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary
employment as a "software developer, lead" 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 Director of the California Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that 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Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance relating to H-lB petitions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.2 The matter is now
before us on appeal.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 3
We review the questions in this matter de novo.4 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.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(4)(iv) provides that "[a]n H-lB petition involving a specialty
occupation shall be accompanied by [d]ocumentation . .. or any other required evidence sufficient to
establish ... that the services the beneficiary is to perform are in a specialty occupation." Furthermore,
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(B)(2) states that a petitioner must state that it will comply
with the terms of the LCA for the duration of the foreign worker's authorized period of stay.
Moreover, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. ยงยง 103.2(b)(8) and 214.2(h)(9)(i) provide U.S. Citizenship and
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. ยง 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) .
2 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda 2 (June 17, 2020),
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/pol icy-memoranda.
3 Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010).
4 See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015).
Immigration Services (USCIS) with broad discretionary authority to require evidence to establish that
the services to be performed by a beneficiary will be in a specialty occupation during the period
requested in the petition. Finally, USCIS has the authority to administer the law that Congress enacted,
and to determine whether an organization has sufficiently demonstrated that it would have qualifying
work avai I able for a beneficiary as requested. 5
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.
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision.
5 See Kollasoft Inc. v. Cuccinelli, No. CV-19-05642-PHX-JZB, 2020 WL 263618, at *7 (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2020) (generally
finding that section 214(a){l) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. ยง 1184 (a){l); 8 C.F.R. ยง 214.2(h)(9)(i) provide such authority).
2 Draft your H-1B petition with AAO precedents
MeritDraft uses real AAO decisions to generate compliant petition arguments tailored to your evidence.
Sign Up Free →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.