remanded H-1B Case: It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 15, 2024 In Re: 28785801 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-IB 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 revoked the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l l )(iii)(A)(l) , concluding the Beneficiary was no longer employed by the Petitioner in the 
capacity specified in the petition. The Director also denied the Petitioner's subsequently filed 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider for not meeting the regulatory requirements . The matter 
is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. REVOCATION 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-IB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent 
to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true and correct, 
inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petition violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( l 5)(H) of the Act or 
paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
The regulations require that USCIS provide notice consisting of a detailed statement of the grounds 
for revocation and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the notice of intent. 
The Director's statements in the notice of intent to revoke (ITR) notified the Petitioner of the 
regulatory reasons for revocation of petition approval and afforded them an opportunity to respond. 
After the Petitioner's response, the Director revoked the petition's approval. The Director also denied 
the Petitioner's subsequently filed combined motion to reopen and reconsider for not meeting the 
regulatory requirements. The Petitioner has filed the instant appeal. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon de novo review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this matter. The Director 
revoked the approval of the petition because information uncovered during a post adjudication 
administrative site visit indicated the Beneficiary was no longer employed in the capacity specified in 
the petition. Specifically, in the course of the administrative site visit, USCIS contacted the end client 
where the Beneficiary was providing their services as an employee of the Petitioner to verify the terms 
and condition of the Beneficiary's employment. The end client reported the Petitioner's staff 
augmentation services in the form of the Beneficiary providing services at the end client commenced 
as anticipated in the petition but were terminated some time before the site visit. Consequently, the 
Petitioner issued an ITR to revoke the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(2), and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(3). 
The Petitioner's response to the ITR confirmed that the Petitioner's staff augmentation services and 
the Beneficiary's employment at the end client had ended. But the Beneficiary continued to provide 
their services as described in the petition in the same metropolitan statistical area albeit with a different 
end client. The Petitioner asserted the Beneficiary continued to be employed in the capacity specified 
in the petition, the statement of facts presented in the petition was true, correct, accurate, and truthful, 
and that there had been no violation of the terms and conditions of the petition. 
The Director revoked the petition's approval pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(l) because 
the Petitioner's job description remained uniform despite the change of end client. The Director also 
highlighted that the duties described by the new end-client were materially different to the duties the 
Petitioner had described in the initial petition. The Director concluded the description of the duties 
were not "sufficient and consistent" evidence of the nature of the work the Beneficiary would perform, 
2 
precluding an evaluation to determine if the proffered position qualified as a specialty occupation 
under any of the criteria contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A). 
It is not clear why the Petitioner's consistency in the expression of its proffered job's duties obscured 
the proffered job's substantive nature. Specifically, the Director called the existence of the Petitioner's 
proffered job into question because the proffered job's duties described in response to the ITR were 
identical to the job duties initially described in the petition. The Director concluded that "these 
identical duties call into question the actual substantive nature of the position" creating doubt that 
there was a "reasonable and credible offer of employment that is consistent with the needs of the 
petitioning organization." But it is unclear why the uniform expression of the proffered job's duties 
supports a conclusion the Beneficiary is no longer employed in the capacity specified in the petition. 
And, whilst the Petitioner identifies that the duties contained in the letter from the new end client are 
"materially changed" the Director does not describe how the duties have materially changed other than 
stating there were "different duties and responsibilities than [ the Petitioner's] description of the duties 
that the [B]eneficiary would perform" and expressing "the [B]eneficiary will work at a different end­
client." Whilst we agree with the Director the duties are different and will be performed at a different 
end-client than the one initially contemplated, it is not sufficiently clear how those differences are 
material. Or in other words, it is not evident why the Director thought the duties borne from the change 
in the end-client were material enough that they changed the terms and conditions of employment and 
rendered the Beneficiary employed in a capacity different than the one specified in the initial petition. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the Director did not explain the reasons 
behind their conclusions that the petition's approval must be revoked because the Beneficiary was no 
longer employed in the capacity described in the initial petition. On remand, the Director may consider 
the job duties described in the petition and supporting evidence submitted initially with the petition 
and with the response to the ITR to identify specific deficiencies or inconsistencies demonstrating a 
material change in the terms and condition of employment supporting a conclusion that the Beneficiary 
was no longer employed in the capacity specified in the petition but instead in a capacity that is not a 
bona fide specialty occupation job opportunity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director's revocation of the petition's approval is withdrawn, and the matter is remanded for 
further action. The Director may choose to consider our observations as they evaluate the record. And 
if appropriate the Director may issue a notice intending to revoke the petition's approval that 
specifically identifies the applicable H-1 B petition approval revocation criteria contained in the 
regulation and supports the reasons underpinning their conclusions. We express no opinion regarding 
the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3