remanded H-1B Case: Medical Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16915490 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2021 
The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment as a "medical technologist" 
under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner was exempt from the ACIWA (American Competitiveness and Workforce 
Improvement Act of 1998) fee and from the H-lB numerical limitation (H-lB cap). The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 1 While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a 
remand is warranted in this case for the following reasons. 2 
The record on appeal includes several agreements between the Petitioner and the University of 
I land different components of this university, as well as the Petitioner's agreements with 
I I and other entities. The Petitioner asserts that it initially provided these agreements 
when it filed this petition. Further, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's request for evidence (RFE) 
did not ask for affiliation agreements between it and other entities but rather requested evidence of its 
non-profit status. We agree there is ambiguity in the Director's RFE regarding the purpose for which 
evidence was requested which may have impacted the Petitioner's ability to respond . In this matter, 
we conclude that a remand is warranted to consider the totality of the evidence, including the affiliation 
1 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
2 Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
agreements in the record. We will therefore remand the matter to the Director for issuance of a new 
decision based on the totality of this petition's record of proceeding. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and entry of a new decision. 
2