remanded H-1B Case: Staffing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8772835 
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 24, 2020 
The Petitioner, a staffing 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 California Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding in part that the Petitioner did not establish an employer-employee relationship with the 
Beneficiary. The Director also concluded that based on a lack of corroborating material, to include 
contracts, 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 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 Subsequently, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded 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, 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. 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. The 
Director should issue a new decision without relying on the guidance contained within the rescinded 
memoranda . 
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 2 (June 17, 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) . 
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