## Facts

- Artee Corporation operated as a temporary help service supplying technically oriented firms with short-term workers.
- Artee filed an H-2 petition under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) to classify multiple foreign beneficiaries as machinists.
- The Regional Commissioner denied the petition, reasoning that a widespread U.S. shortage of machinists made the offered employment permanent rather than temporary.
- The case reached the INS Commissioner on certification.
- INS practice recognized that a temporary help service can be the actual employer of workers it supplies, making the service’s need the relevant need for H-2 analysis.

## Issues

1. Under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), whether “temporary services or labor” is determined by the nature of the duties performed or by the petitioner-employer’s temporary need for those duties.
2. For a temporary help service, whether an ongoing business need to supply workers during a general labor shortage can qualify as “temporary” within the H-2 category.
3. Whether prior precedent applying a duty-centered test for “temporary” should remain controlling.

## Decision

- The Commissioner sustained the denial of H-2 classification because Artee did not demonstrate a temporary need for machinists.
- The Commissioner held that the correct test is the petitioner’s temporary need for the services, not the character of the duties themselves.
- The Commissioner rejected an approach focusing on the customer-clients’ use of the workers; the inquiry centers on the temporary help service’s need.
- The Commissioner overruled Matter of Contopoulos, which had emphasized the nature of the duties in assessing temporariness.
- Applying the need-based test, the Commissioner concluded that a temporary help service’s demand for machinists, given a continuing market shortage, was ongoing rather than of limited duration.

## Legal Principles

- H-2 “temporary” employment turns on whether the petitioner’s need for the services is temporary; the nature of the duties is not controlling.
- For a temporary help service that is the actual employer, the relevant inquiry is the service’s need for the beneficiaries, not the needs of its client companies.
- Where a petitioner’s business model results in a continuous need to supply a particular skill—especially during a broader labor shortage—the petitioner generally fails to show the temporariness required by INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii).
- Matter of Contopoulos is overruled to the extent it treated the nature of the duties as the central measure of “temporary” under INA § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii).

## Conclusion

The Commissioner held that H-2 eligibility requires proof of the petitioner-employer’s temporary need for the workers’ services; because a temporary help service’s need to supply machinists during a sustained shortage was ongoing rather than time-limited, the petition was not approvable.


Matter of Artee Corp., 18 I. & N. Dec. 366 (Comm’r 1982)