dismissed H-1B Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY. 03, 2024 In Re: 30682319 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner filed more than one H-1 B petition subject to the numerical limitations at 
section 214(g)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(g)(l)(A) (H-1B cap) on behalf of the same noncitizen 
in the same fiscal year. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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. REVOCATION 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition 
pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(h)( 11 )(iii), which states the following: 
(A) 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 petition in the capacity 
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 petition violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( l 5)(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. 
The regulations require that USCIS provide notice consisting of a detailed statement of the grounds 
for revocation of petition approval and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the 
notice of intent to revoke. 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner, as described below in more detail, filed two H-lB petitions subject to the H-lB cap on 
behalf of the Beneficiary during the fiscal year 2024 filing period pursuant to a single validly selected 
H-1 B cap registration. 
On March 25, 2023, USCIS informed the Petitioner that the registration it submitted on behalf of the 
Beneficiary on March 1, 2023 had been selected toward the number projected as needed to reach the 
advanced degree exemption (master's cap). Based on this selected registration, the Petitioner was 
invited to file one single corresponding H-lB petition between April 1, 2023 and June 30, 2023 at the 
Nebraska Service Center. The Petitioner filed a petition on behalf of the Beneficiary on May 11, 2023, 
but neglected to accompany it with a corresponding Department of Labor ETA Form 9035E labor 
conditions application (LCA) certified for the intended place of employment. Instead of a 
corresponding LCA, the Petitioner submitted a non-corresponding LCA certified for a different 
location of intended employment than that listed on the Form 1-129. The Director issued a request for 
evidence to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to submit a valid LCA filed and certified prior to May 
11, 2023 corresponding to the H-lB petition. The Petitioner's response to the RFE contained a letter 
from the Petitioner's vice president, corporate counsel stating they "incorrectly downloaded and 
printed" the non-corresponding LCA accompanying the petition and an LCA corresponding to the 
work address listed in the Form 1-129 which was filed and certified after the filing of the petition. The 
Director denied the petition on June 21, 2023. 
In the waning days of the fiscal year 2024 filing period on June 29, 2023, the Petitioner improperly 
filed a second petition pursuant to the H-lB cap registration which was approved in gross error on 
July 8, 2023. The Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) its approval on July 19, 2023, 
concluding that the Petition should not have been approved because the Petitioner had filed multiple 
cap subject petitions for the same beneficiary in the same fiscal year. The Director ultimately revoked 
the petition's approval on September 13, 2023. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts revocation of the petition's approval contravenes applicable 
regulations. The Petitioner's counsel contends the Petitioner filed multiple petitions on behalf of the 
Beneficiary in the same fiscal year and filing period pursuant to a single registration to correct a 
2 
"typographical error." They further assert the petition should remain approved because the earlier 
filed petition was not denied based on fraud or misrepresentation. 
II. MULTIPLE PETITIONS 
A. 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 in most circumstances. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) specifically 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)(C) 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)(C) 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 permits the filing of a subsequent H-1 B petition on behalf of the same noncitizen in 
the same fiscal year provided that the earlier H-1 B petition was denied on a basis other than fraud or 
misrepresentation and only when the H-1 B numerical limitation has not been reached or if the petition 
is otherwise exempt from the numerical limitation. 
B. Analysis 
The Petitioner's petition must 
be revoked because its approval was grossly erroneous. The Petitioner 
did not, as it asserted, "comply with users' s (sic) procedures and requirements" when it filed two H-
1 B cap subject petitions on behalf of the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year. And the numerical 
limitations had been exhausted when the Petitioner filed their second H-lB petition for the 
Beneficiary. So, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) requires denial or revocation of all 
petitions filed by the Petitioner for the Beneficiary. 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertion, "the crux of this matter" is not "a simple typo." The Petitioner's 
procedurally improper filing of the underlying petition here germinated from the legally insufficient 
initial petition it filed for the Beneficiary. The initial petition was filed with an LCA that did not 
3 
correspond to the petition the Petitioner filed. A certified LCA is a foundational component to a 
legally sufficient H-1 B petition. A certified LCA memorializes the attestations a petitioner makes 
regarding the employment of the noncitizen in H-lB status. See 20 C.F.R. § 655.734(d)(l)-( 6). Whilst 
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for certifying that the Petitioner has made the 
required LCA attestations, USCIS evaluates whether the submitted LCA corresponds with the 
Petitioner's H-lB petition. 20 C.F.R. § 655.705(b) ("DHS determines whether the petition is 
supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition .... "); Matter of Simeio Solutions, 26 l&N 
Dec. 542,546 n.6 (AAO 2015). See also ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS, 590 F. Supp. 3d 27, 40 (D.D.C. 
2022) (noting 20 C.F.R. § 655.705 requires USCIS "to check that the [H-lB] petition matches the 
LCA"); see also United States v. Narang, No. 19-4850, 2021 WL 3484683, at *1 (4th Cir. Aug. 9, 
2021)(per curiam)("[USCIS] adjudicators look for whether [the] employment [listed in the H-lB 
petition] will conform to the wage and location specifications in the LCA"). So, we do not agree with 
the categorization of the issue of a non-corresponding LCA on level terms with "a simple typo." 
The LCA accompanying the initial petition contained a work site address in a different metropolitan 
statistical area (MSA) far outside of a commutable distance from the MSA containing the work site 
address listed in the Form 1-129. And, whilst the Petitioner's vice president, corporate counsel asserted 
they "incorrectly downloaded and printed" the non-corresponding petition they submitted with the 
initial petition, the ostensibly correct LCA the Petitioner's vice president, corporate counsel submitted 
in response to the RFE the Director issued in the initial petition was filed and certified well after the 
filing of the initial petition. Or in other words, the Petitioner could not have correctly downloaded and 
printed an LCA corresponding to the worksite address contained in the Form 1-129 at the time of filing 
because such an LCA did not exist until after the Petitioner filed the petition and the Director issued 
an RFE. The Petitioner's attempt to mitigate the legal insufficiency of their initial petition through 
submission of the later filed LCA was consequently futile because the petition was unapprovable as 
filed. The Director's denial of the initial petition was correct. 
And the Director's revocation of the underlying subsequently filed petition here is also correct. The 
Petitioner's attempt to mitigate its error by filing a subsequent petition ( and thus, multiple petitions in 
the same fiscal year for the same beneficiary) was improper because it contravened the applicable 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). Whilst the initial petition the Petitioner filed on behalf of 
the Beneficiary was not denied on a basis of fraud or misrepresentation, the underlying petition on 
appeal here was filed after the H-lB numerical limitation for fiscal year 2024 was exhausted. USCIS 
received 780,884 total registrations for the fiscal year 2024 H-lB cap. This far exceeded the statutory 
limits of 65,000 for regular petitions and 20,000 exemptions for beneficiaries with advanced degrees 
(master's cap). USCIS selected 188,400 registrants for further processing over the course of two 
selection periods in March and July 2023. The Petitioner points to USCIS running an additional 
selection in July 2023 to mistakenly assert the H-lB numerical limitations had not been reached. 
Additional selections are required from time to time to address fluctuations in denial, withdrawal, and 
filing rates. But an additional selection from the pool of registrations does not mean that the numerical 
limitations were unexhausted. The numerical limitations were exhausted on March 27, 2023 when 
USCIS received sufficient registrations to eclipse the statutory limits. See FY 2024 H-lB Cap Season 
Updates, https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/fy-2024-h-1 b-cap-season-updates. So, the 
Petitioner's second petition for the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year was improperly filed because 
the numerical limitations were exhausted when the petition was filed on June 29, 2023. 
4 
Furthermore, the Petitioner's contention that the second petition was properly filed because it was 
filed during the initial filing period specified in the registration selection notice is misplaced. The 
selection notice states that "USCIS will deny or reject the H-lB cap subject petition if it is not properly 
filed within the filing period ... " ( emphasis added). The registration selection notice instructs that 
"[b]]ased on this selected registration, your company is eligible to file a corresponding H-1 B 
petition ... " ( emphasis added) or in other words one single petition. The Petitioner filed more than 
one, and thus multiple, cap subject H-lB petitions for the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year. The H­
lB Cap Season webpage makes clear that"[ m ]ultiple or duplicative petitions will be denied or revoked 
even if they are filed pursuant to a selected registration." See "H-lB Cap Season," 
https ://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1 b-specialty-occupations­
and-fashion-models/h-1 b-cap-season. The Petitioner's filing of multiple petitions in contravention of 
the regulation is plainly improper even if the initial filing period specified in the registration selection 
notice had not elapsed. 
So, there is no authority in the statute, regulations, or policy which permits approval of the H-lB cap 
subject petition under this multiple filing scenario. The regulatory prohibition applies to all H-lB cap­
subject petitions filed on behalf of the same beneficiary by a petitioner in the same fiscal year 
irrespective of the reason. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). Approval of this petition is consequently 
grossly erroneous as approval is prohibited by the regulation. The petition was properly revoked 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5) and we must dismiss this appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
5