sustained H-1B Case: Special Education

MATTER OF M-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 1, 2017 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "special education teacher and 
coordinator" under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(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, California Service Center, initially approved the petition. Thereafter, the petition was 
randomly selected for an administrative site visit. In response to new evidence and upon further 
review, the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), and ultimately revoked the approval 
of the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
contends that the petition's approval should be reinstated. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-1 B petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)(l1 )(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of 
intent to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(I) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition ... ; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition ... was not true and 
correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
Matter of M-R-
(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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Upon our review of the entire record of proceedings, including the submissions on appeal, we find 
that the record contains sufficient evidence to overcome the bases of the Director's decision. 
Though the Director specified only one specific basis under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A) for 
revoking the petition's approval - 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(3) - her discussion of the 
specialty-occupation issue indicates that she also considered the approval revocable under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). 1 As such, we reviewed the evidence of record in relation to both criteria. 
The record of proceedings, including the Petitioner's evidence and assertions submitted on appeal, 
establishes that the Beneficiary's duties are consistent with those proposed by the Petitioner at the 
time of filing. In other words, it does not establish that the Petitioner violated the terms and 
conditions of the approved H -1 B petition. We therefore find no basis upon which to revoke the 
petition's approval pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(3). 
We also find that the record of proceedings - again, including the Petitioner's evidence and 
assertions submitted on appeal - establishes that the proffered position is a specialty occupation 
pursuant to section 214(i)(l) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A)(4). The nature of the 
specific duties proposed for the Beneficiary of this particular petition is so specialized and complex 
that the knowledge required to perform them is usually associated with attainment of a bachelor's 
degree in a specific specialty, or the equivalent. In other words, because the proffered position is a 
specialty occupation, the approval of the petition did not violate paragraph (h) of 8 C.P.R. § 214.2 or 
otherwise involve gross error. We therefore find no basis upon which to revoke the petition's 
approval pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(5). 2 
1 Specifically, in questioning the proffered position's status as a specialty occupation, the Director indicated that she 
considers approval of the petition to have "violated paragraph h of [8 C.F.R. § 214.2] or [to have] involved gross error." 
See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll )(iii)(A)(5). 
2 
In addition, we have conducted a de novo review of the entire record of proceedings and see no basis upon which to 
revoke approval ofthe H-18 petition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(I), (2), or (4), either. Further, we have 
reviewed the Beneficiary's credentials and find her qualified to perform the duties of this specialty occupation. 
2 
Matter of M-R-
III. CONCLUSION 
As we find no basis upon which to revoke the approval ofthis H-1B petition, the Director's decision 
will be withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. The burden is on the Petitioner to show 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that 
burden has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofM-R-, ID# 260180 (AAO Feb. 1, 2017) 
3