remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9094613 
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. 5, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology solutions provider, 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)(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 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 in part that the Petitioner 
did not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. The Director also 
concluded that based on a lack of corroborating material, to include contracts , the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation and that it would have 
qualifying work available for the Beneficiary. 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rescinded previously issued policy guidance relating to H- lB petitions filed for workers who will be 
employed at one or more third-party worksites, and directed its officers to apply the existing regulatory 
defmition at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) to assess whether a petitioner and a beneficiary have an 
employer-employee relationship . 1 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 
We review the questions in this matter de nova. 3 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 letters from the end-client appear to 
contain generalized and somewhat vague duties. Additionally, the Director may wish to evaluate the 
1 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114 , Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 2 (June 17, 2020), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,3 75 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
end-client's position prerequisites. It initially required a minimum of a bachelor's degree in computer 
science, information technology, or a closely related field. Then, in a second letter submitted in 
response to the Director's request for evidence, it amended its prerequisites to a minimum of a master's 
degree in computer science, information technology, or a closely related field and three years of 
expenence. 
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