remanded H-1B Case: Logistics

MATTER OF R-L-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a logistics provider, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "accountant" 
under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations, under Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(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, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the petition. Subsequently, a site visit was 
conducted and the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). The Petitioner did not 
respond to the NOIR. On December 18, 2014, the Director revoked the approval of the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that neither it nor its Counsel received the NOIR or the revocation 
decision, and asserts that the revocation should be overturned on procedural and substantive 
grounds. The Petitioner further attests that it first learned about the revocation proceedings in June 
2016, when it received a request for additional evidence (RFE) pertaining to a new petition filed to 
extend the Beneficiary's H-1B status. The RFE stated, in part, that the previously approved H-1 B 
status had been revoked. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested a copy of the revocation decision and 
received another decision dated July 7, 2016. 
Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decisions and remand the matter to the 
Director for further action and consideration. 
After reviewing the record, we find that the NOIR did not sufficiently identify the grounds for 
revocation. While the NOIR recited all the grounds for revocation under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)( A), it did not specify the particular grounds upon which the Director intended to 
revoke the petition's approval. The NOIR also did not adequately discuss the evidence for the 
grounds. For example, while the NOIR describes the Beneficiary's duties, it does not discuss how 
they relate to the grounds for revocation. Further, while the NOIR states that the pay stubs in the 
record do not verify that the Beneficiary is earning wages consistent with the terms and conditions of 
the approved petition, it does not discuss why the pay stubs are not satisfactory. Moreover, we note 
/'vfatter of R-L-, Inc. 
that the revocation decisions provide an incorrect date for the site visit and are issued 18 months 
apart with the same error. 
Therefore, we will withdraw the decisions to revoke the petition's approval and remand this matter 
to the Director for further consideration. Any new NOIR must specifically detail the grounds for 
revocation and provide sufficient information concerning the evidence used in making any 
determination of the Petitioner's eligibility. 
ORDER: The December 18, 2014, and the July 7, 2016, decisions of the Director, Vermont 
Service Center, are withdrawn. The matter is remanded to the Director, Vermont 
Service Center, for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for 
the entry of a new decision. 
Cite as Matter of R-L-, Inc., ID# 186996 (AAO Feb. 28, 20 17) 
2