dismissed H-1B Case: Business

MATTER OF P-T-A-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 25, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a benchmarking business, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a business 
analyst under the H-1B 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-1B 
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, Vermont Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not establish a legitimate business need for filing multiple H-1B petitions for the same 
Beneficiary. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal brief, the Petitioner submits additional evidence 
and asserts that it provided sufficient evidence to establish a legitimate business need to file two 
H-1B petitions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) states, in pertinent part, the following:, 
An employer may not file, in the same fiscal year, more than one H-lB petition on 
behalf of the same alien if the alien is subject to the numerical limitations of section 
214(g)(l)(A) of the Act or is exempt from those limitations under section 
214(g)( 5)(C) of the Act. If an H-1 B petition is denied, on a basis other than fraud or 
misrepresentation, the employer may file a subsequent H-1 B petition on behalf of the 
same alien in the same fiscal year, provided that the numerical limitation has not been 
reached or if the filing qualifies as exempt from the numerical limitation. Otherwise, 
filing more than one H-1 B petition by an employer on behalf of the same alien in the 
same fiscal year will result in the denial or revocation of all such petitions. If USCIS 
believes that related entities (such as a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate) may 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-A-, Inc. 
not have a legitimate business need to file more than one H-1 B petition on behalf of 
the same alien subject to the numerical limitations of section 214(g)(l )(A) of the Act 
or otherwise eligible for an exemption under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act, USCIS 
may issue a request for additional evidence or notice of intent to deny, or notice of 
intent to revoke each petition. If any of the related entities fail to demonstrate a 
legitimate business need to file an H-1 B petition on behalf of the same alien, all 
petitions filed on that alien's behalf by the related entities will be denied or revoked. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We reviewed the record in its entirety, including the H-lB petition filed by the Petitioner's affiliate, 
(affiliate), and determine that the Director's 
decision to deny the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) is correct.1 Specifically, we 
find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner and its affiliate had a legitimate business 
need to each file an H-1 B petition on behalf of the Beneficiary. 
The Petitioner asserts that both the Petitioner and its affiliate have a "legitimate business need" to 
file an H-lB visa for the same Beneficiary because they provide "related but different services." 
For example, the Petitioner "provides a complete range of benchmarking services across a wide 
range of industries to companies around the world," such in-depth benchmark data analysis survey, 
modeling survey, performance improvement workshops, and business model evaluations. On the 
other hand, the Petitioner's affiliate "focuses on market research and consulting services on the 
chemicals, plastics, and other process industries," and publishes multiple studies each year covering 
regional, multi-regional and global views on issues most relevant to the plastics and related 
chemicals industry. In support, the Petitioner submitted documentary evidence including business 
profile, tax returns, and pay roll records. 
However, the documentation in the record of proceedings does not demonstrate a materially distinct 
employment position for the Beneficiary to establish a legitimate business need. 2 Although the 
Petitioner states that the two entities provide different services, both H-lB petitions contain the exact 
same job duties. The Petitioner asserts that both entities use a "general job description for Business 
Analyst," and they both have employed individuals for such positions. However, in establishing a 
position as a specialty occupation, a petitioner must describe the specific duties and responsibilities 
to be performed by a beneficiary in the context of its business operations, demonstrate a legitimate 
1 The file number for the petition filed by its affiliate is The Petitioner submitted documentation to 
support the H-1 B petition, including evidence regarding the proffered position and the Petitioner's business 
operations. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 This position is documented in the supplementary information regarding a 2008 interim rule, which states "USCIS 
recognizes that an employer and one or more related entities (such as a parent, subsidiary or affiliate) may extend the 
same alien two or more offers for distinct positions and therefore have a legitimate need to file two or more separate H­
I B petitions on behalf of the same alien." Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1 B temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt 
from the Annual Numerical Limitation , 73 Fed. Reg. 15389, 15392 (March 24, 2008) (to be codified 8 C.F.R. § 
214 .2(h)(2)(i)(G)) (emphasis added). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-T-A- , Inc. 
need for an employee exists, and substantiate that it has H-1B caliber work for the Beneficiary for 
the period of employment requested in the petition. 
Here, the Petitioner provided the same job description for both petitions while asserting that the 
services of the related entities differ, and did not sufficiently demonstrate specific duties and 
responsibilities to be performed in the context of each business operation. Further, the Petitioner 
acknowledges that the Petitioner and its affiliate are located in the same building, and share the same 
administrative staff and human resources support to reduce overhead cost. Notably, 
Human Resources Manager, was the signatory for both H-lB petitions. Therefore, the Petitioner did 
not substantiate that the Beneficiary was offered two distinct employment opportunities for a 
legitimate business need. "[G]oing on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings." Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal., 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) eliminates multiple H-1B filings in order to curtail 
duplicative and multiple petition filings by the same employer.3 Here, the Petitioner did not provide 
sufficient documentation to overcome the Director 's concerns that the Petitioner did not establish a 
legitimate business need to submit multiple H-1 B petitions for the same Beneficiary. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 qf 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-T-A-, Inc., ID# 17596 (AAO Aug. 25, 2016) 
3 "A subsidiary should not file an H-1 B petition for an alien just to increase the alien 's chances of being selected for an 
H-1 B number where that subsidiary has no legitimate need to employ the alien and is, instead, only filing a petition to 
facilitate the alien 's hiring by a different, although related subsidiary. " !d. at 15393. 
3