remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12161110 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 21, 2020 
The Petitioner, an information technology solutions and services firm, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnmigrant 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 Vermont Service Center denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimrnigrant 
Worker, concluding in part that, based on a lack of credible corroborating material, the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated it would have qualifying work available for the Beneficiary . The Director also 
concluded 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 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 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy 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 definition 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 novo.3 While we conduct de novo review on appeal, we 
conclude that a remand is warranted in this case in part based on the new USCIS policy guidance . 
1 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 2 (June I 7, 2020), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Within her new decision, the Director may wish to further address the inconsistencies and 
discrepancies in the record and determine whether or not the Petitioner has satisfactorily overcome the 
credibility concerns discussed in her most recent decision. 4 
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. 
4 The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the 
reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
2