remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8910517 
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. 28, 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 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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. While this appeal was pending, 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in ltserve Alliance, Inc. v. Cissna, 
443 F. Supp. 3d 14 (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rescinded previously issued policy guidance and directed its officers to apply the existing regulatory 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. 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner, which is located in Texas, has outsourced the Beneficiary to 
work at an end-client location in Missouri, pursuant to a series of contracts. The contractual path 
appears to flow from the Petitioner to I I (first-vendor , between the first-vendor and 
I Ksecond-vendor), and between the second-vendor and -,------,--~(end-client). 
As such, the contractual path of succession between the actors in this case may be summarized as: 
Petitioner :::t: First-Vendor :::t: Second-Vendor :::t: End-Client. 
Because the Director's decision did not include a discussion of the substantive nature of the proffered 
position, the Director may wish to consider whether the Petitioner has met its burden in establishing 
that the "software developer" position is a specialty occupation.1 We observe several discrepancies 
1 The Petitioner designated the proffered position under the SOC code and title 15-1132, "Software Developers, 
Applications ." For more information , visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, https://www.bls.gov/OOH/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm#tab-2 and Dep't of 
Labor's O*NET summary report at https://www .onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1132.00 (last visited Jun. 23, 2020). 
and inconsistencies within the record, in addition to position descriptions that do not support a finding 
that the proffered position requires a bachelor's degree or higher in a specific specialty. 
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