remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6268928 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-IB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 6, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software consulting and development company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "software developer" under the H-IB nonimmigrant 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-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 Vermont Service Center Director initially approved the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, and subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) . Ultimately, the Director revoked 
the approval, concluding that: (1) the statement of facts contained in the approved petition was not 
true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; (2) the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner will engage the Beneficiary in an employer-employee relationship; and, 
(3) the Petitioner did not establish that the proffered position is a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that the Director erred. The Director's decision 
will be withdrawn and the matter remanded for further consideration and action. 
I. REVOCATION AUTHORITY 
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 1 )(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: 
(I) 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 petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
( 4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( 15)(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. 
(B) Notice and decision. The notice of intent to revoke shall contain a detailed 
statement of the grounds for the revocation and the time period allowed for the 
petitioner's rebuttal. The petitioner may submit evidence in rebuttal within 30 
days of receipt of the notice. The director shall consider all relevant evidence 
presented in deciding whether to revoke the petition in whole or in part .... 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) states that: 
If the decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory 
information considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner is 
unaware, he/she shall be advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the 
information and present information in his/her own behalf before the decision is 
rendered .... 
II. ANALYSIS 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it did not receive a copy of the NOIR and thus, did not submit a 
response to the NOIR. In the record of proceedings, it appears that the NOIR was sent to the addresses 
for the Petitioner and the attorney on record that were listed on the Form 1-129 filed in 2016. Since 
the addresses for the Petitioner and attorney subsequently changed, it is not clear if they received a 
copy of the NOIR. The Director's Revocation decision was sent to the correct addresses. 
Since the Petitioner did not receive the NOIR, the Director did not provide the Petitioner with adequate 
notice of her intentions pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(16)(i) and 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B). The matter 
will therefore be remanded to the Director for farther review and issuance of the requisite NOIR, and 
we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's revocation decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of 
a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2