remanded H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21048421 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 5, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimrnigrant 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 approved the H-lB petition but revoked it, citing to 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D), because the Petitioner's financial institution did not honor the checks the 
Petitioner used to pay the petition's filing fees. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred 
in revoking the H-lB petition's approval. 
While we conduct de nova review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case for 
two independent reasons. 
First, the Petitioner has put forth compelling arguments that warrant review by a first-line adjudicator. 
The Petitioner argues, and provides credible documentation to establish , that their financial institution 
reversed payment not because of insufficient funds, or other action caused by the Petitioner, but rather 
because the bank flagged the Petitioner's checks in its check fraud prevention system. The Petitioner's 
checks were initially honored by their bank, however because of the bank's check fraud prevention 
system, the bank reversed the payments. As noted in a letter dated June 29, 2021, which the Petitioner 
provided in response to the Director's notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approved H-IB petition, 
the bank acknowledged the reason for reversing the honored checks , explained that the Petitioner had 
sufficient funds in their account , and requested that USCIS resubmit the returned checks. The 
Director's decision does not appear to have considered this document or any other evidence and 
arguments submitted by the Petitioner in response to the NOIR . Thus, a first-line adjudication of these 
arguments and evidence should be conducted. 
Second, and regardless of whether the Director finds the Petitioner 's arguments and evidence 
persuasive, the revocation decision did not follow proper revocation procedures . Rather than citing to 
one of the revocation-on-notice criteria enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(l)-(5) as the 
basis for revocation, the Director cites to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D). However, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A), an H-lB petition's approval may only be revoked on notice for one of the 
following reasons: 
( I) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity specified 
in the petition, or if the beneficiary is no longer receiving training as specified 
in the petition; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition or on the application for a 
temporary labor certification was not true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, 
or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
( 4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( 15)(H) of the Act or 
paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or involved 
gross error. 
The Director's NOIR and decision did not cite to any of the above subsections of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A) and instead erred by citing to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D) as the basis for 
revocation. We observe that if the Director believes the failure to reject the filing in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D) led to the petition being approved in error, then the fifth revocation­
ground enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5) might serve as a valid basis upon which to 
revoke its approval. 
Accordingly, and for the above two reasons, we are withdrawing the Director's decision to revoke the 
approved petition, and remanding the matter for entry of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2