remanded H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 17, 2024 In Re: 33421193 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to 
file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Petitioner's extension petition and the request 
to extend the Beneficiary's stay in H-lB status, concluding that the Beneficiary has not maintained 
status and that the record did not establish that a bona fide job offer exists for the Beneficiary to be 
employed in a specialty occupation. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
The Director concluded that the Beneficiary violated his H-lB status by working for an organization 
other than the Petitioner and for which the Beneficiary did not have authorization from USCIS to be 
employed. These findings are based upon the Beneficiary acting as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 
of and signatory for an organization that filed an H-lB petition for the Beneficiary's wife. A USCIS 
investigation concluded that this H-lB petition contained false or inaccurate information and 
misrepresentations of material facts. The Director therefore determined that the Beneficiary engaged 
in unauthorized employment, failed to comply with the conditions of his status, and failed to maintain 
his status. Based upon these findings, the Director denied the instant petition, finding that the 
Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that a bona fide job offer exists for the Beneficiary such that 
the Beneficiary will be employed in a specialty occupation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary did not engage in unauthorized employment, did 
not fail to maintain his H-1 B status, and that the proffered position in the Petitioner's extension petition 
represents a bona fide job offer. The Petitioner also asserts that even if the H-lB petition for the 
Beneficiary's wife involved fraudulent conduct, that is not relevant to the adjudication of this petition. 
First, regarding the Director's decision to deny the H-lB petition based upon the conclusion that there 
is no bona fide job offer for the Beneficiary, we will remand the matter for a decision consistent with 
the following analysis. 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a noncitizen "who is coming 
temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in section 
214(i)(l) ... "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 184(i)(l), defines the term 
"specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires the "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." An 
employer files a petition with USCIS for review of the services to be performed and for determination 
of the noncitizen's eligibility to perform services in the specialty occupation. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l)(i); (l)(ii)(B)(l). The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4) provide further specific 
eligibility requirements for an H-1 B petition, such as those related to beneficiary qualifications and 
obtaining a valid, certified labor condition application (LCA) and the related attestations. An H-lB 
petition will be denied if the Director determines that the statements on the petition or LCA were 
inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(10)(ii). 
The Director's basis for denial of the extension petition relates solely to conduct of the Beneficiary 
that appears to have occurred outside of his employment with the Petitioner. For example, the Director 
did not conclude that the evidence indicated that the Beneficiary has not been employed by the 
Petitioner or that, despite being employed, has not been performing the duties of the specialty 
occupation for which the Petitioner filed the H-lB petition. The record also does not contain sufficient 
evidence that the Petitioner was involved in the scheme to assist the Beneficiary's wife in obtaining 
H-lB status and, if so, that this reflects on the bona fide nature of the Petitioner's job offer. The 
Director's conclusion that the Beneficiary has engaged in unauthorized employment does not preclude 
the Petitioner from employing the Beneficiary in a specialty occupation and therefore having a bona 
fide job offer for the Beneficiary. Therefore, we will remand the matter for further development of 
the record regarding the existence of the bona fide job offer for the Beneficiary, as well as any other 
evidence to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated eligibility under the relevant statutory 
and regulatory framework for an H-lB extension petition. 
Second, we take no position regarding the Director's determination to deny the Beneficiary's 
extension of stay. Although those seeking H-lB status are currently permitted to file one form to 
request a petition extension and an extension of stay for a beneficiary, they are still separate 
determinations. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(14); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(15); and 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c). Moreover, 
there is no appeal from a decision to deny an extension of stay to a beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(10)(iii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.l(c)(5). The regulations limit our jurisdiction over 
petitions for temporary workers to those described under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 and 214.6. We therefore 
have no jurisdiction over, and state no position on, the Petitioner's appeal from the Director's 
determination that the Beneficiary is ineligible for an extension of stay under 8 C.F .R. § 214.1 ( c ). 
2 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner must establish that a bona fide job offer exists for the 
Beneficiary to perform services in the specialty occupation. But the Director does not sufficiently 
articulate how the Beneficiary's role as a signatory on an H-lB petition for the Beneficiary's wife 
relates to the Petitioner, its job offer, or the other eligibility requirements for its H-lB petition. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to determine if the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for an H-1 B extension under the relevant statutory and regulatory framework and to enter a 
new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on 
remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3