remanded H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10021846 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software development and consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as a "Java Api developer" under the H-lB 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-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 evidence of 
record does not establish that (1) the Petitioner will have an employer -employ ee relationship with the 
Beneficiary , and (2) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. The Petitioner submits 
additional evidence on appeal including a new letter from the end-client and an opinion letter. 1 The 
Petitioner asserts that the evidence submitted demonstrates that the proffered position qualifies as a 
specialty occupation and that it will have an employer-employee relationship with the Beneficiary. 
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U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded previously issued policy guidance and 
directed its officers to apply the existing regulatory definition at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) to assess 
whether a petitioner and a beneficiary have an employer-employee relationship. USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM-602-0114, Rescission of Policy Memoranda at 2 (June 17, 2020), 
http://www. uscis. gov /legal-resources /policy-memoranda. 
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. 2 Accordingly, the following order shall be issued. 
1 The Petitioner asserts that it also submitted an updated Prime Vendor letter as Exhibit B; however, the record does not 
contain the referenced updated letter from the Prime Vendor. 
2 We also note, in her decision, the Director erroneously mentions companies that do not pertain to this petition. When 
denying a petition , the decision must be based on correct recitation of the facts and documents and the Director must fully 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
explain the reasons in order to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and provide the AAO an 
opportunity for meaningful appellate review. Cf Matter of M-P-, 20 l&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that the reasons 
for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on 
appeal). 
2