dismissed H-1B Case: Social Networking Service

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 5, 2024 In Re: 34696215 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner, a social networking service, 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. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
(petition), concluding the Petitioner submitted multiple H-lB registrations on behalf of the Beneficiary 
in the same fiscal year. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
proof to demonstrate eligibility 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 novo. 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&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 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 USCIS has selected its registration for that particular beneficiary in the registration. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)( 4). 
In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2) specifies that a petitioner may submit only one 
registration per beneficiary per fiscal year, and if a petitioner submits more than one registration per 
beneficiary per fiscal year, all registrations filed by that petitioner relating to that beneficiary for that 
fiscal year may be considered invalid. 
The Petitioner submitted two H-lB registrations on the Beneficiary's behalf during the 2025 fiscal 
year and both registrations were selected toward the fiscal year's H-lB numerical cap projections. In 
May of 2024, the Petitioner filed the underlying petition that now sits before us on appeal. During 
that same month the Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) informing the Petitioner of the 
reasons they were going to deny the petition and affording them the opportunity to rebut the allegations 
in the notice. The Director indicated that the Petitioner submitted two registrations for the Beneficiary 
during the fiscal year 2025 H-lB Electronic Registration Process. The Director afforded the Petitioner 
the chance to demonstrate how the beneficiaries or the registrants in both registrations were not the 
same. 
In response, the Petitioner did not show that the beneficiaries or the registrants in both registrations 
were not the same. Instead, they explained that the Beneficiary was inadvertently assigned two 
internal employee identity numbers and that resulted in the foreign national's data being sent to two 
immigration law firms, one of which used an incorrect birth date for the Beneficiary. Then, each law 
firm submitted a registration for the Beneficiary on behalf of the Petitioner. Because the Petitioner 
did not overcome the issues identified in the NOID, in July of 2024 the Director denied the petition 
for the same reasons presented in the notice. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the registration regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2) 
does not mandate that users consider all the registrations invalid, nor is the agency required to deny 
or revoke any petition based on those registrations. The Petitioner instead posits the regulation gives 
the agency the discretion to perform those actions, but it is not required to do so. The Petitioner then 
discusses its opinion of the purpose of the regulation to prevent bad actors and not to punish 
inadvertent errors. The Petitioner further focuses on the preponderance of the evidence standard and 
states that it has satisfied that standard in showing the filing in its entirety meets the H-1 B statutory 
and regulatory requirements. The Petitioner indicates: 
[I]f the evidence presented tends to show all requirements are satisfied, the Service is 
mandated to grant the requested classification as a matter oflaw. However, where the 
Service fails to adhere to the correct standard or deviates from its established guidelines 
in evaluating the 'specialty occupation' category, the Service will have aired as a matter 
oflaw. 
Accordingly, we submit that the evidence relied upon throughout our submissions 
compels the conclusion that the "preponderance of the evidence" standard has been 
satisfied and that the required burden of proof necessary to warrant the approval of the 
instant petition is clearly satisfied. 
To highlight the referenced regulation and its language, it states: 
Limitation on beneficiaries. A prospective petitioner must electronically submit a 
separate registration for each beneficiary it seeks to register, and each beneficiary must 
be named. A petitioner may only submit one registration per beneficiary in any fiscal 
year. 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 may be considered invalid, and users may deny or revoke the approval of 
any H-lB petition filed for the beneficiary based on those registrations. If users 
determines that registrations were submitted for the same beneficiary by the same or 
2 
different registrants, but using different identifying information, USCTS may find those 
registrations invalid and deny or revoke the approval of any H-1B petition filed based 
on those registrations. Petitioners will be given notice and the opportunity to respond 
before USCTS denies or revokes the approval of a petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). In addition to the Petitioner's responsibilities as identified in the 
above regulation, the USCTS website discussing the H-1 B electronic registration process contained 
relevant information when the Petitioner filed the petition-as it does now-such as the step-by-step 
instructions portion. That part of the website containing a section titled "Tips to A void Common 
Mistakes with H-1 B Electronic Registration" in which the agency warned prospective employers to 
"Avoid Duplicate Entries" stating: 
A prospective petitioner may only have one registration submitted per beneficiary per 
fiscal year. Once the initial registration period has closed, if the prospective petitioner 
has more than one registration submitted for the same beneficiary, we may invalidate 
all registrations submitted for that beneficiary by that prospective petitioner, or their 
authorized attorney or representative, from the selection process. This does not prevent 
other prospective petitioners or their representatives from submitting registrations for 
that same beneficiary, but they too need to ensure that each of them, as a prospective 
petitioner, only has one registration submitted for the beneficiary. 
H-1 B Electronic Registration Process, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Dec. 2, 2024), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1 b-specialty­
occupations/h-1 b-electronic-registration-process. The agency even informed the Petitioner that it 
offers a duplicate submission checker, and the website provided the following information: 
We have added duplicate checker functionality to the electronic registration 
process. 
Before you submit your registration( s ), you can check if the registrant/prospective 
petitioner named in the draft submission previously submitted a registration for any of 
the beneficiaries included in that draft submission for the same fiscal year. Using this 
check does not guarantee that you will not submit a duplicate. This check will compare 
the beneficiaries listed in the draft with any registrations previously submitted during 
this registration period. It will not check for duplicates within that draft or between 
drafts. Even if using this check function, the burden is still on the registrant and their 
authorized attorney or representative, if applicable, to ensure that no duplicate 
registrations are submitted. To that end, we also provide a tool to download a .csv file 
and search for duplicate entries. Also, we recommend that attorneys and authorized 
individuals who work for the same company coordinate to eliminate duplicates before 
submitting their registrations. 
Id. While the website information may not carry the same weight as the regulation, we highlight it to 
demonstrate that USCTS attempted to prevent employers from making inadvertent mistakes in the 
H-1 B registration process; the same type of inadvertent mistakes present in this case. 
3 
Next, a review of the Director's decision does not confirm the Petitioner's contention that users erred 
when it concluded that denying the petition was its sole option. While the Director may have denied 
the petition, we find no language or implication within it conveying that their decision was mandated 
in that direction. 
And the Director was not required to expressly address the fact that the multiple-registration 
occurrence here was inadvertent. When users provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and 
has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner 
makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the Petitioner presents. Amin, 
24 F.4th at 394; Lafortune v. Garland, 110 F.4th 426, 441 (1st Cir. 2024); see also Kazemzadeh v. 
US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th 
Cir. 1993). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the lack of a direct discussion from the Director 
relating to why multiple registrations were submitted prejudiced it in any way. 
Additionally, the final determination of whether the record satisfies the regulation's requirements or 
meets the party's burden of proof lies with users. See Matter of Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (finding that the appropriate entity to determine eligibility is USCrS). While 
users may have discretion to act, that authority alone does not render its decision erroneous simply 
because its choice didn't align with the Petitioner's preferences. So long as the agency's action fits 
within the bounds oflaw and reason, its choice remains just that: a choice, not an error. The Director 
was charged with making a determination in this case. They made that decision, and in doing so, 
provided a sufficiently reasoned consideration to the petition without committing any prejudicial 
errors. 
And finally, although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)( 4)(i) refers to more than one 
registration being submitted for a single beneficiary, that provision relates to registrations from 
multiple unrelated employers-or registrants-and not a single employer as we have in this case. 
We will accordingly dismiss the appeal, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4