dismissed H-1B Case: Data Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17830138 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 12, 2021 
The Petitioner, a data science and analytics company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as 
a "senior associate" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
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 California Service Center initially approved the petition, but then revoked it after 
concluding that the Petitioner violated the general prohibition on filing multiple H-lB petitions for the 
same Beneficiary under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that they made 
an error and requests that the approval of the instant petition be reinstated. The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N 
Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. BACKGROUND AND PERTINENT FACTS 
The Petitioner filed an H-lB petition for the Beneficiary on June 22, 2020. The Petitioner then filed 
the instant petition eight days later. Both petitions were subsequently approved. On October 14, 2020, 
the Director issued a notice of her intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition. Specifically, the NOIR stated 
that the Petitioner did not comply with the regulation prohibiting filing multiple petitions for the same 
beneficiary under the annual H-lB numerical limitation (H-lB Cap) or demonstrate a legitimate 
business need for these multiple petitions. 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner acknowledged that due to an administrative error, they had 
mistakenly submitted two H-lB Cap petitions for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner asserted that once 
they were aware of the duplicative petitions, they requested a withdrawal of the other H-lB petition 
in advance of the issuance of the NOIR. As part of their evidence, the Petitioner submitted their 
September 9, 2020 withdrawal request for the other petition and a June 29, 2020 stop payment receipt 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In addition, the Petitioner also argued the 
H-1B pre-registration and lottery process eliminates any benefit to filing multiple petitions and 
asserted that they only submitted one single H-1B pre-registration for the Beneficiary. Ultimately, the 
Petitioner reiterated their request to withdraw the other petition, but to reinstate the approval of the 
instant petition. 
The Director found the Petitioner's response insufficient and revoked the approval of the instant 
petition, concluding the Petitioner did not comply with the regulations. On appeal, 1 the Petitioner 
reiterates their previous arguments and submits additional evidence, including an additional stop 
payment request. The Petitioner requests that the Director allow the other petition to be withdrawn, 
and that the instant case continue. 
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A. Revocation Authority 
USCIS may revoke the approval of an H-1B petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A), 
which states the following: 
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: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition, or if the beneficiary is no longer receiving training 
as 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 
(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. 
B. Multiple H-1B Cap Petitions 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) prohibits multiple H-1B petitions from being filed in 
the same fiscal year for the same beneficiary by an employer, or, under certain circumstances, by 
1 Although the Petitioner styles this filing as a "Motion to Reopen and Reconsider" in its brief, it filed the Form 1-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, as an appeal. As such, we consider this filing an appeal. 
2 
"related entities." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) states in pertinent part: 
Multiple H-1B petitions. An employer may not file, in the same fiscal year, more than 
one H-1B petition on behalf of the same [foreign national] if the [foreign national] is 
subject to the numerical limitations of section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act or is exempt 
from those limitations under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act. . . . Otherwise, filing 
more than one H-1B petition by an employer on behalf of the same [foreign national] 
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 not have a legitimate business need to file more than one H-1B petition on behalf 
of the same [foreign national] subject to the numerical limitations of section 
214(g)(1)(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-1B petition on behalf of the 
same [foreign national], all petitions filed on that [foreign national's] behalf by the 
related entities will be denied or revoked. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Upon review of the record in its totality and for the reasons set out below, we conclude that the Director 
properly revoked the approval of the instant petition.2 The Petitioner filed two petitions for the same 
individual, who was subject to the H-1B cap within the same fiscal year. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) clearly articulates that the filing of multiple H-1B Cap petitions for the same 
beneficiary in the same fiscal year "wi 11 result in the denial or revocation of all petitions" unless the 
petitioner provides a legitimate business need. Although the Petitioner acknowledges they made an 
enor, an "administrative mistake" does not demonstrate a legitimate business need for the duplicative 
filings. The Petitioner has identified no authority by which we may waive that requirement. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's subsequent withdrawal of the other petition for the Beneficiaiy does not 
absolve the Petitioner of the multiple filing bar.3 As mentioned, the bar requires all petitions filed on 
behalf of the foreign national to be denied or revoked. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G); see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(15). Again, the Petitioner identifies no discretionary authority by which we may waive 
this requirement. 
The Petitioner argues that 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) was developed prior to the new H-1B pre­
registration and lottery process, and that those processes eliminate any benefit to filing multiple 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner argues they took proactive steps to withdraw their other petition. However, without more 
evidence, we cannot ascertain whether the submitted stop payment receipts were directly related to the other petition. As 
such, the receipts lack probative evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's intent to withdraw the other petition. Even ifwe 
were to accept these receipts as evidence, we would find the Petitioner's timing of the withdrawal request problematic. As 
noted, the stop payments were requested on June 29, 2020, and the Petitioner's withdrawal request of the other petition 
was dated on September 9, 2020. Although the withdrawal request for the other petition was dated before the Director's 
NOIR, the Petitioner appears to have been aware of the duplicate filing since the stop payment was made, and they do not 
provide an explanation as to why they waited over two months to withdraw the case. In sum, the provided documents do 
not support that the other petition was withdrawn as soon as the duplicate filing was discovered. 
3 
petItIons. Be that as it may, USCIS has maintained it will continue this regulatory prohibition on 
filing multiple H-lB Cap petitions for the same beneficiary and all petitions would be revoked. 
Registration Requirement for Petitioners Seeking To File H-lB Petitions on Behalf of Cap-Subject 
Aliens, 84 Fed. Reg. 905, 907 (Jan. 31, 2019). In addition, although the Petitioner submitted one 
single H-lB pre-registration for the Beneficiary, this does not overcome the multiple filing bar of the 
regulation. We have stated that any "multiple or duplicative petitions will be denied or revoked even 
if they are filed pursuant to a selected registration." USCIS, "H-lB Cap Season," 
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-lb-specialty-occupations­
and-fashion-models/h-lb-cap-season (last visited on Oct. 12, 2021). Again, the Petitioner identifies 
no discretionary authority by which we may waive these requirements. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not overcome the rebuttable presumption posed by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), and approval of the petition is therefore prohibited. As the Petitioner violated the 
requirements of the regulation, approval the petition was appropriately revoked pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(ll)(i i i)(A)( 4 ). 
IV. BENEFICIARY QUALIFICATIONS 
As discussed, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to overcome the multiple filing bar. 
Therefore, we need not and will not address the Beneficiary's qualifications to perform the duties of a 
specialty occupation, except to note that the record contains only partial scans of the Beneficiary's 
diploma and transcripts.4 Without a complete copy of the Beneficiary's educational documents, the 
record is not sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform the duties of the 
proffered position. As such, since evidence was not presented that the Beneficiary has at least a U.S. 
bachelor's degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, the petition should have not been approved 
even if eligibility for the benefit sought had been otherwise established. 
V. CONCLUSION 
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 here, 
and the petition will remain revoked. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The Beneficiary 's educational documents do not display the entire documents. Rather, the documents are so enlarged or 
magnified that only a fraction of each document is shown. 
4