sustained H-1B Case: Software Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4334381 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 13, 2020 
The Petitioner, a software services company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated the availability of work for the Beneficiary to perform throughout the requested validity 
period. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous. 
Based on our de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating 
specialty occupation work for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary at its 
Arizona office to work on various client projects implementing the Petitioner's proprietary software 
platform. The Beneficiary will work as part of the Petitioner's team on projects managed by the 
Petitioner. The submitted work orders, along with other evidence of the Petitioner's operations, 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has sufficient, ongoing, in-house 1 projects for the Beneficiary to work 
on. Furthermore, they credibly demonstrate the nature of the services she will provide in her capacity 
as a technical implementation consultant (TIC). 
Even though a specific client may change , the duties that the TIC will provide are consistent across 
the work orders. The work orders sufficiently delineate the roles and duties of the TIC ( as well the 
Petitioner's other employees). Further, all of the services the Petitioner will generally provide are 
consistent across the work orders. The work orders involve the same proprietary software platform 
that the client licenses pursuant to a software license agreement issued by the Petitioner. 
We recognize that each work order is for a relatively short duration of time. Further, the latest work 
order expired in 2018, even though the Petitioner requested a three-year validity period from October 
1 Although the work orders indicate that the Beneficiary will perform some offsite services at the clients' premises , such 
offsite work is limited in duration and is peripatetic in nature. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.715. 
2018 to August 2021. None of the submitted work orders name the Beneficiary. We acknowledge 
that these factors could raise questions about availability of work or the specialty occupation nature of 
the position. 
Generally, these factors would have more negative weight in a third-party placement case or even an 
in-house case where the nature of a beneficiary's work could change significantly based on the 
requirements of a customer, project, contract, or other variable factors. In those types of cases, we would 
typically rely on specific contracts to demonstrate that the beneficiary would provide services in a 
specialty occupation for the duration of period requested. Here, however, the Beneficiary will work 
in-house on Petitioner-managed projects, and her job duties will remain consistent across different 
clients. Therefore, the lack of specific contractual evidence covering the entire validity period or 
individually naming the beneficiary is not critical to the overall outcome of this case. 
Finally, we considered the option of limiting the petition's approval to the period of time documented 
in the work orders. However, we conclude that a limited approval would be not be appropriate for 
this particular case, which does not hinge on specific contractual documents, given the Petitioner's 
continual work providing its proprietary platform to many clients, as established in the record. 
Accordingly, the petition should be approved for the foll period of time requested. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
2