remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10240866 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 28, 2020 
The Petitioner , an information technology services company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(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 know ledge; 
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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish (1) an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary; and (2) that the proffered 
position qualifies as a specialty occupation. While this appeal was pending , the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia issued a decision in Itserve 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rescinded previously issued policy guidance and directed its officers to apply the existing regulatory 
definition at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) to assess whether a petitioner and a beneficiary have an 
employer-employee relationship. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy 
Memoranda at 2 (June 17, 2020), http: //www.uscis.gov /legal-resources /policy-memoranda. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.2 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. 
Within her new decision, the Director may wish to decide whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. In particular, the letter from the end-client appears to 
contain generalized and somewhat vague duties , as well as extensive industry jargon. For instance, 
the duty of "[ c ]ollaborate with multiple application teams and internal clients to research , assess 
technical needs and develop new solutions" does not contain an explanation of what the Beneficiary 
will do to collaborate, nor does the end-client defme what "technical needs and develop new solutions" 
are. Moreover, another duty appears to be administrative or clerical in nature and does not readily 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 
2 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
feature specialized knowledge. It is not apparent, for instance, why a bachelor's degree in a specific 
specialty would be needed to provide "[s]trong communication and internal client engagement skills, 
with the ability to educate and enroll business and technology customers on practices, technologies 
and solutions." Even taken at face value, communicating with others is a skill that can be learned in 
any educational program and indeed through life in general. Thus, these descriptions do not 
sufficiently convey the nature of the position or why it is specialized. 
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. 
2