dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 22, 2024 In Re: 30137843 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a tax filing, accounting, and financial planning services company, seeks to temporarily 
employ the Beneficiary as a staff accountant under the H-1 B nonimrnigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U .S.C. 
§ l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified 
nonimrnigrant 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner submitted 
multiple H-lB petitions for the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year, thus requiring the denial of all 
petitions filed by the Petitioner on behalf of the Beneficiary .' The matter is now before us on appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
Before filing an H-lB cap-subject petition on behalf of a beneficiary subject to 214(g)(l)(A) of the 
Act (the H-lB cap) or exempt under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act (the H-lB advanced degree 
exemption), a petitioner must first register with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) website as described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). The registration must be properly 
submitted in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii), and the form 
instructions. A petitioner may file the H-lB petition only after its registration for that beneficiary has 
been selected. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2) specifies that a petlt10ner may submit only one 
registration per beneficiary per fiscal year, and if a petitioner submits more than one registration per 
1 As we address below, the Petitioner submitted multiple H- lB registrations on behalf of the Beneficiary in the same fiscal 
year, not multiple H-lB petitions . The Director 's decision incorrectly refers to the filing of multiple petitions . 
beneficiary per fiscal year, all registrations filed by that petitioner relating to that beneficiary for that 
fiscal year will be considered invalid. 
The Petitioner filed an H-1 B petition under the advanced degree exemption. The Petitioner included 
in their filing a USCIS receipt notice showing that their registration for the Beneficiary had been 
selected. However, because USCIS records established that the Petitioner submitted two registrations 
for the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) explaining 
that the multiple registrations had rendered both registrations invalid, and that the Petitioner therefore 
lacked a valid, selected registration to file an H-lB cap-subject petition on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
The Director requested evidence to establish that the selected H-lB registration for the Beneficiary is 
valid and that the Petitioner did not submit more than one registration on behalf of the Beneficiary, 
such as evidence establishing that the beneficiaries in the two registrations are not the same or evidence 
establishing that the registrants for the two registrations are not the same. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that they intended to file only one registration on behalf 
of the Beneficiary and that the multiple registrations were submitted in error. The Petitioner submitted 
a letter from the president of the Petitioner, a letter from counsel, and a copy of the president's work 
schedule in support of this response. The Director denied the petition, concluding that this response 
was insufficient. However, the Director's decision incorrectly refers to the filing of multiple H-1 B 
petitions as the basis for the denial, rather than the filing of multiple registrations, and concluded that 
the Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), which proscribes 
the filing of multiple H-1 B petitions by the same employer for the same beneficiary in the same fiscal 
year. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that they did not file multiple H-1 B petitions, that they complied 
with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), and that the decision is therefore in error. The Petitioner also 
submits on appeal another copy of their RFE response and reiterates that they did not intend to file 
multiple H-1 B registrations. The Petitioner asserts that we possess the discretion to approve the 
petition and requests that we do so. 
We acknowledge that the Director's decision incorrectly refers to the filing of multiple petitions and 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2(i)(G), rather than the filing of multiple H-lB registrations, 
which is proscribed at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). We therefore withdraw the Director's finding 
that the Petitioner filed multiple H-1 B petitions on behalf of the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year. 
Although we withdraw the finding that was the basis for the Director's denial, we conclude that the 
petition must nevertheless remain denied. While the Director's decision misstates the basis for the 
denial, the Petitioner was notified of the issue regarding the multiple registrations by the Director's 
RFE and provided the opportunity to address this deficiency. The Petitioner does not attempt to rebut 
the USCIS records that the Petitioner submitted multiple registrations for the Beneficiary in the same 
fiscal year. Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the multiple registrations were in error and requests that 
we excuse this error in our discretion. 
The Petitioner, citing to the USCIS Policy Manual, asserts that we have authority to exercise discretion 
to grant the benefit sought, if the requestor has met all the applicable threshold eligibility requirements. 
See generally I USCIS Policy Manual E.8, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Petitioner 
2 
states that the Beneficiary meets all applicable threshold eligibility requirements, that the double 
registration was the result of "honest human error," and that favorable discretion is therefore warranted 
in this case. 
However, the Petitioner has not established that the applicable threshold eligibility requirements have 
been met, as would be necessary to favorably exercise discretion. 2 As stated above, if a petitioner 
submits more than one registration per beneficiary in the same fiscal year, all registrations filed by 
that petitioner relating to that beneficiary for that fiscal year will be considered invalid. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). As such, both of the Petitioner's registrations for the Beneficiary, including 
the selected registration, are invalid, and consequently, the Petitioner does not possess a valid, selected 
registration to file this H-lB petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(]). 
The issue is not whether the Petitioner or the Beneficiary merit approval as a matter of discretion; 
rather the Petitioner has not established regulatory eligibility as a threshold matter. We lack the 
authority to waive or disregard any of the Act's requirements, as implemented by regulation. See 
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 69 5 ( 197 4) ("So long as this regulation is extant it has the force 
oflaw."). While we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Petitioner's and counsel's assertions 
regarding the circumstances that led to the filing of the two registrations, the Petitioner does not have 
a valid registration to file this H-lB petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(2). Therefore, the petition 
must be denied. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner has also not established that a discretionary analysis is applicable to the adjudication of an H-lB 
nonimmigrant petition. See generally 1 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at E.8; see also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2. Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner has not established, as an initial matter, that they meet all applicable threshold eligibility requirements. 
3