remanded H-1B Case: Investment Advisory

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7952932 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 23, 2022 
The Petitioner , an investment advisory company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an 
"Associate" under the H-1 B nonirnmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See hnmigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 H-lB petition concluding, in part, that the 
Petitioner did not establish it would have qualifying work available for the Beneficiary for the entire 
period of requested employment. The matter is now before us on appeal. While this appeal was 
pending , the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in ItServe All., Inc. v. 
Cissna, 443 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D .C. 2020) , appeal dismissed sub nom. ITServe All., Inc. v. Cuccinelli, 
No. 20-5132 , 2020 WL 3406588 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 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Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance relating to H-lB petitions 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 . USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-
0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda 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 . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
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. Additionally, the passage of time necessitates a remand 
of the record to allow an opportunity to update the record and, in particular , for the Petitioner to submit 
any further evidence in support of the petition . 
Because this case may be affected by the new policy guidance, we will remand the matter so that the 
Director may conduct a first-time adjudication and determine the impact of that guidance. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2