dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-T-S-, INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18,2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software consulting company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"software developer" under the H -1 B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(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 Vermont Service Center initially approved the petition, then revoked the 
approval on the basis that the Petitioner filed two H -1 B petitions for the same Beneficiary, Y-R -1, in 
violation of8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it did not file two petitions on behalf of Y-R-. The Petitioner 
claims that it filed one H-lB petition on behalf of Y-R-, and one H-lB petition on behalf of S-D-, 
another beneficiary, and that the Director confused the two petitions. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), an employer is prohibited from filing more 
than one H-1B petition on behalf of the same Beneficiary. This regulation states, in pertinent part: 
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 
1 Initials are used throughout this decision instead of full names. 
.
Matter of A-T-S-, Inc. 
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. 
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner filed this petition (receipt number ) seeking to employ the 
Beneficiary as a software qeveloper. On the Form I-129; Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the 
Petitioner specifically identified the Beneficiary as Y-R-, and provided her biographical information. 
This petition was accompanied by the H Classification Supplement to Form I-129, the H-1B and 
H-lBl Data Collection Filing Fee Exemption Supplement, the Form I-907, Request for Premium 
Processing Service, and a cover letter, all of which specifically identified the Beneficiary as Y-R-. 
The remaining supporting documentation, however, pertained to another individual, S-D-. 
On the same day, the Petitioner filed another petition (receipt number seeking to 
employ the Beneficiary as a software developer. Specifically, on that Form I-129, the Petitioner 
identified the Beneficiary as Y-R- and provided her biographical information. That Form I-129 was 
also accompanied by the appropriate H-IB supplement forms and supporting documentation, all of 
which identified the Beneficiary as Y-R- and contained her biographical information. 
Noting that most documentation submitted with this petition ( referenced 
another individual, S-D-, the Director issued the Petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). In 
response to the RFE, the Petitioner confirmed its intent to employ the Beneficiary, Y-R-. Based on 
this information, the Director approved the petition. 
Subsequently, the Director issued a notice of inte'nt to revoke (NOIR) this petition 1 
concurrently with a notice of intent to deny the other petition 1 Both 
notices advised the Petitioner of its multiple filings for Y-R-. 
In response to both notices, the Petitioner stated that it "filed only one petition for the beneficiary 
[Y-R-] vide ' The Petitioner then stated that it "presume[d] that Receipt no. 
must be for [S-D-] whose ~heck for [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 
fee has been cleared but we have neither receipted the receipt notice, nor the H 
1 B petition filed by us 
has been returned to us." The Petitioner acknowledged that, "[d]ue to a purely clerical error of mix 
up we had accidentally attached some of the documents (resume & transcripts) of [S-D-] along with 
the petition filed for [Y-R-]." 
The Director revoked the approval of this petition and denied the other petition 
based on the multiple filings for Y-R-. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that it is "not sure as to whose case number pertains to whom. In any 
case both the cases are interrelated as each of the case has been denied due to HUGE MIX UP by 
2 
.
Matter of A-T-S-, Inc. 
USCIS." The Petitioner requests us to reverse the Director's decision with respect to Y-R-'s 
petition, and to "please track this petition filed for [S-D-]." 
III. ANALYSIS 
We find that the Director properly revoked the approval of this petition, finding that this is a multiple 
H-lB filing for the same Beneficiary by the same employer. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 
After 
reviewing USCIS records, we find that the P~titioner did, in fact, file two H-1 B petitions 
and for Y-R-. Under each receipt number, the Petitioner 
specifically identified Y -R- as the Beneficiary on the Form I-129 (and accompanying supplement 
forms) which was submitted to USCIS for processing, thus filing two H -1 B petitions on her behalf. 
While the Petitioner submitted supporting documentation (e.g., resume and transcripts) relating to 
S-D- along with this Form I-129 ' , simply submitting these supporting 
documents does not constitute the actual filing of an H-lB petition for S-D-. The actual filing of an 
H -1 B petition for S-D- could only have been accomplished through submitting a Form I -129 (and 
required evidence) identifying him as the beneficiary and containing his biographic information. 
There is no evidence that the Petitioner did so here; instead, it separately submitted two Forms I-129 
for Y-R-. USCIS records do not indicate that the Petitioner filed any H-lB petitions for S-D-.2 
On appeal the Petitioner questions why the check for S-D- was processed, yet USCIS maintains that 
no H-lB petition has been filed on his behalf. But as we stated above, the Petitioner has not actually 
filed a petition for S-D-. This is true even if one of the Petitioner's checks was annotated with his 
name on it. And as the Director explained in its decision, since was revoked and 
was denied for being duplicate filings, USCIS will not refund any filing fees 
notwithstanding the latter petition's non-selection under the H-lB lottery. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) (mandating the denial or revocation of multiple petition cases); c.f 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) (mandating the rejection, not denial or revocation, of petitions not randomly 
selected under the H-lB lottery). 
2 USCIS records do contain a copy of a Fonn 1-129 with S-D-'s information. However, the Petitioner submitted this 
copy ofthe Form 1-129 only after the Director issued the NOIR. There is no evidence that this Form 1-129 was properly 
submitted in accordance with all filing requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2) (filing requirements for H-1 B 
petitions); 8 C.F.R. § 
I 03.2(a)(l) (general filing requirements for all immigration applications and petitions). Without 
such evidence, this submission in response to the NOIR does not constitute a proper H-1 B filing for S-D-. Nor does such 
a submission. constitute the filing of an amended or new petition, which is required to reflect any material changes, such 
as the identity of the Beneficiary, from the original petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
3 
.
Matter of A-T-S-, Inc. 
Finally, we note that both petitions and and appeals were 
prepared by an immigration "consultant" apparently operating 
an accounting firm. That immigration 
consultant specifically acknowledged that it is neither a licensed attorney in the United States nor an 
accredited representative authorized to undertake representations on the Petitioner's behalf. Thus, 
we do not recognize this consultant as the Petitioner's representative, and 
will not send a copy of this 
decision or any other correspondence to him or her. See 8 C.F .R. § 292.1. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner filed two H-1B petitions for the same Beneficiary, Y-R-, the Director 
properly revoked the approval of this petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-S-, Inc., ID# 379263 (AAO July 18, 2017) 
4