remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8856133 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 16, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting firm, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 
temporarily under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations .1 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 Petitioner did 
not establish that the Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation for the requested 
period of intended employment. While this appeal was pending, the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia issued a decision in Itserve Alliance , Inc. v. Cissna, --- F.Supp .3d ---, 2020 WL 1150186 
(D.D.C. 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 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded 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. 2 The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 
We review the questions in this matter de novo.4 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 . 
Within her new decision, the Director may wish to further address the following issues . In the 
proceedings before the Director, the Petitioner offered two letters from the end-client. We note those 
functions appear to be overly vague and generalized. Within the appeal the Petitioner supplied an 
additional letter from the end-client that contained different and additional duties as well as the amount 
of time the Beneficiary would spend performing those functions . The Director may wish to consider 
whether the latest set of duties within the third end-client letter are sufficiently similar to the previous 
set, or whether the new functions may be materially different. If the Director concludes the latest 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l( a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0114 , Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 2 (June I 7, 2020), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda . 
3 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
4 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
duties are sufficiently similar, she may wish to evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that 
those functions are adequately detailed to support a favorable specialty occupation finding, or whether 
the letter falls short of that standard. 
The Director may also wish to address why the initial end-client letter reflected that the Beneficiary's 
"services are needed for whatever temporary period of time specified in the submitted Form 1-129," 
then in the second letter changed that information to match the dates the Petitioner listed in the petition. 
The Director may also inquire whether any party offered sufficient reasoning to establish why the 
Beneficiary's work would require the amount of time requested on the petition. All of these elements 
will address whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the substantive nature of the position. 
Because this case is affected by the new policy guidance, we find it appropriate to remand the matter 
for the Director to consider the question anew and to adjudicate in the first instance any additional 
issues as may be necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, the following order shall be issued. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2