dismissed H-1B Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 26402007 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 10, 2023 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2(i)(G) 
because the Petitioner filed more than one H-1 B petition subject to the numerical limitations at section 
214(g)(l)(A) of the Act (H-lB cap) on behalf of the same noncitizen in the same fiscal year. 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. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed two H-lB petitions subject to the H-lB cap on behalf of the Beneficiary within a 
week of one another on June 23, 2022 and June 30, 2022. On August 2, 2022, the Director issued 
notices of intent to deny (NOID) for each petition . The NO IDs provided the Petitioner the opportunity 
to explain their legitimate business need to file more than one H-lB cap subject petition on behalf of 
the Beneficiary. The Petitioner withdrew its petition filed on June 30, 2022 on August 2, 2022. 1 The 
Petitioner responded to the notice issued in connection with its petition filed on June 23, 2022 with an 
1 The Petitioner 's request for withdrawal was on their letterhead, referenced the correct receipt number, and was signed by 
their authorized signatory with their title. However , the request referenc ed a different petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that this was typographical error. The Director acknowledged the withdrawal of the H-lB petition on September 
6, 2022. 
explanation and a request for premium processing service. 2 The Director found the Petitioner's 
response did not establish a legitimate business need to excuse their later submission of the H-1 B cap 
subject petition for the same beneficiary and denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates 
their previous statements and requests an exercise of favorable discretion. 
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) prohibits multiple H-lB petitions from being filed in 
the same fiscal year for the same beneficiary by an employer or related entities. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) states: 
Multiple H-JB petitions. 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)(e) of the Act. If an H- lB petition is denied, on a basis other than 
fraud or misrepresentation, the employer may file a subsequent H-lB 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-lB 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 users 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-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)(e) of the Act, 
users 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-lB petition on behalf of the same alien, all 
petitions filed on that alien's behalf by the related entities will be denied or revoked. 
The regulation precludes a favorable action of discretion absent showing a legitimate business need 
for the filing of multiple H-lB cap subject petitions for the same beneficiary. If there is no legitimate 
business need, filing multiple H-1 B cap subject petition will result in the denial or revocation of all 
petitions. 
III. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's petition must be denied. The Petitioner filed two H-lB cap subject petitions for the 
same beneficiary in the same fiscal year without a legitimate business need to do so. And without a 
legitimate business need, the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) requires denial or revocation 
of all petitions filed by the Petitioner for the Beneficiary. 
2 Although the Director asserts that the Petitioner did not respond to the notice of intent to deny, the record reflects that 
they did in conjunction with their request for premium processing service. We withdraw the Director's comments to the 
contrary and consider their error harmless as it has no influence on the disposition of this matter. 
2 
The Petitioner requested a favorable act of discretion because their duplicate filing was supposedly 
inadvertent. Their response to the NOID acknowledged that they submitted two H-lB cap subject 
petition on behalf of the Beneficiary, but they stated this was unintentional. The Petitioner stated that 
it withdrew its petition on June 30, 2022 once it became aware of its error, and forfeited the filing fees 
and costs incurred in preparation. 3 The Petitioner attested that the petitions they submitted were 
identical and were not filed in an effort to circumvent regulations or increase the chances of approval. 
The Petitioner's error, inadvertent as they may claim it is, is not a legitimate business need justifying 
duplicate H-lB cap subject filings. And the Petitioner's withdrawal of the other petition they filed for 
the Beneficiary did not ameliorate the situation. The regulatory prohibition applies to all H-lB cap 
subject petitions filed on behalf of the same beneficiary by the Petitioner in the same fiscal year. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)2)(i)(G). There is no authority in the statute, regulations, or policy which permits 
approval of the H-lB cap subject petition under this duplicate filing scenario. 
So, the Petitioner has not provided a legitimate business need to justify why it filed multiple H-lB cap 
subject petition on behalf of the same beneficiary in the same fiscal year. Approval of the petition is 
prohibited pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 
IV. CONCLUSION. 
As discussed, the Petition did not identify a legitimate business need to substantiate its multiple H-lB 
cap subject filings for the beneficiary in the same fiscal year. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden here. The appeal must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 It is irrelevant to the ultimate disposition of this matter whether the petition was withdrawn in response to the issuance 
of the NOID or serendipitously on the same day the NOID was issued. 
3