remanded H-1B Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13334231 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 9, 2021 
The Petitioner, an information technology solutions provider, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant 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 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 it would have qualifying work available for the Beneficiary . 
Although a previous appeal in this matter was dismissed , we note that on March 10, 2020 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Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance relating to H-lB petitions filed for 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 a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
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 novo3and 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). 
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 prior decisions issued by the Director and the Administrative Appeals Office are 
withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the Director for farther proceedings consistent 
with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2