remanded H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 33639558 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's temporary employment under the H-lB nonirnrnigrant 
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. 
While the California Service Center Director approved the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonirnrnigrant 
Worker (petition), it did so for a shorter period of time than the Petitioner requested. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 l&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. 
Section 214(g)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(4), sets a six-year limit on the period of authorized 
admission or stay for an H-lB nonirnrnigrant. However, as the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(A) provides, time spent outside the United States does not necessarily count when 
calculating the end-date of that six-year period. In making that calculation, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(C) states the following: 
Calculating the maximum H-lB admission period. Time spent physically outside the 
United States exceeding 24 hours by an alien during the validity of an H-lB petition 
that was approved on the alien's behalf shall not be considered for purposes of 
calculating the alien's total period of authorized admission under section 214(g)( 4) of 
the Act, regardless of whether such time meaningfully interrupts the alien's stay in 
H-lB status and the reason for the alien's absence. Accordingly, such remaining time 
may be recaptured in a subsequent H-lB petition on behalf of the alien, at any time 
before the alien uses the full period of H-lB admission described in section 214(g)(4) 
of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(13)(iii)(C)(l) contains further details regarding this calculation, 
including the types of evidence petitioners may submit and clarifies that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services may grant all, part, or none of the recapture period requested. 
The only issue here is the appropriate timeframe for the petition's approval. The Petitioner requested 
to employ the Beneficiary from March 1, 2024, through July 29, 2025, in H-1 B status. Without issuing 
a notice seeking to clarify any issues, the Director approved the petition through a Limited Validity 
Notice. And instead granting the requested timeframe, the Director only approved it through June 8, 
2025, which was 51 fewer days than the Petitioner requested. In doing so, the Director questioned the 
Petitioner's recapture calculation of 187 days implying that they could not include days for recapture 
in which the Beneficiary travelled because he was not outside the United States for the entire 24-hour 
period on those days. 
The record does not "paint" the full picture regarding the Beneficiary's entries and exits from the 
United States while he held H-1 B status, and that clouds our ability to determine what party is correct 
in this appeal. In their appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's decision, and they indicate that 
the government's calculations did not include the Beneficiary's travel days as the Director seemed to 
imply. The Petitioner's appeal brief correctly notes that the denial decision does not explain how the 
agency calculated the Beneficiary's recapture time, placing them at a disadvantage and leaving them 
without a solid basis to refute. The following data is either found in the record or within government 
systems. 
Departure Date Entry Date Days outside the 
United States1 
September 28, 2018 October 15, 2018 16 
February 12, 2019 March 7, 2019 22 
Date is in question May 27, 2019 Unknown 
November 19, 2019 December 3, 2019 13 
April 1, 2022 May 21, 2022 49 
March 25, 2023 Possibly on April 18, 2023 2 Possibly 23 
October 20, 2023 December 23, 2023 63 
Total Days Outside the United States Unable to calculate based on 
current record 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary departed the United States on May 25, 2019, and only offered a 
printout of timeanddate.com as evidence of when he left this country at the beginning of that trip. 3 A 
printout of timeanddate.com is inadequate evidence to establish the date that the Beneficiary departed 
the United States and the Petitioner should be prepared to provide more probative evidence to show 
his actual departure date during that trip. 
1 We did not include any departure nor reentry dates when calculating these figures. 
2 The Beneficiary's passport lacks an entry stamp into the United States reflecting this date. The only indication this is a 
possibility is an exit stamp from the country of India the day before this date. 
3 This claim is reflected in the above chart under the Departure Date column showing "Date is in question." 
2 
And within the Director's decision, they only listed a portion of the dates the Beneficiary entered or 
exited the United States. It appears the Director skipped a step: not showing their work. See Rhodes 
v. Wilkie, No. 17-1868, 2018 WL 3689147, at *1 (Vet. App. Aug. 1, 2018) (finding that when a 
government agency denies a filing party's benefit based on the agency's calculations, the agency 
representative should "show his or her work"). Not only is such a showing necessary to properly 
inform the Petitioner of the full basis for the denial decision to give them a fair opportunity to file an 
informed motion or appeal, but without it we are unable to determine whether the Director's approval 
only through June 8, 2025, is correct. 
Consequently, without a reflection of the Director's calculation method, the record does not reflect 
that the Petitioner was provided a meaningful opportunity on appeal to address or rebut the Director's 
assessment. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) (requiring a petition's denial be in writing containing 
specific reasons for the adverse decision); Matter of Saelee, 22 I&N Dec. 1258, 1262, 1286 (BIA 
2000) (citing Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786, 787-88 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully 
explain the reasons for denying a filing to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge 
the determination on appeal); see also Matter ofA-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 468,474 (BIA 1999); Matter of 
Palacios-Pinera, 22 I&N Dec. 434,439 (BIA 1998); Matter ofAir India Flight No. 10, 21 I&N Dec. 
890, 891-92 (BIA 1997). 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to consider the above 
discussed issues and enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. 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