remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8854078 
Appeal of Vermont 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 services company, 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary would perform services in a specialty occupation throughout the 
requested validity period. While this appeal was pending, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia issued a decision in Jtserve 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 Subsequently , U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded 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 decide whether the Petitioner has demonstrated the 
substantive nature of the proffered position. In particular, the letters from the end-client appear to 
contain generalized and somewhat vague duties, as well as extensive industry jargon. Furthermore, we 
note the end-client did not indicate what project the Beneficiary would work on until the appellate stage. 
Instead the Petitioner presented several undertakings! lwas associated with, without 
informing the Director of what the Beneficiary's work would actually consist of. Questions remain 
whether the Beneficiary's detailed work duties would remain the same from one undertaking to the next. 
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) . 
Additionally, the Director may wish to evaluate the end-client's position prerequisites. It initially 
required a minimum of a Bachelor of Computer Science degree, relevant engineering or related degree, 
or a combination of education and experience equating to the U.S. equivalent of a master's degree in 
one of the aforementioned subjects. Then on appeal it amended its prerequisites to match the 
Beneficiary's achievements, a bachelor of technology degree and a U.S. equivalent master's degree in 
computer science. We also note a discrepancy in what the Petitioner would pay the Beneficiary. On 
the petition it indicated one amount, while his employment offer letter reflected a much different 
annual salary. 
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