dismissed H-1B Case: Software Development

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-1B nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 
See 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-1B 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 denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner filed 
two H-1B petitions for the same Beneficiary, Y-R-1, in violation of 8 C.F.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-1B petition on behalf of Y-R-, and one H-1B 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.F.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-1B 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 
reached or if the filing qualifies as exempt from the numerical limitation. Otherwise, 
1 Initials are used throughout this decision instead of full names. 
.
Matter of A-T-S-, Inc. 
. 
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. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND 
The Petitioner filed this petition (receipt number seeking to employ the 
Beneficiary as a software developer. 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-IB and 
H-lBl Data Collection Filing Fee Exemption Supplement, and supporting documentation, all of 
which specifically identified the Beneficiary as Y-R-. 
On the same day, the Petitioner filed another petition (receipt number seeking to 
employ the Beneficiary as a software developer. Specifically, on that Form 1-129, the Petitioner 
again identified the Beneficiary as Y-R- and provided her biographical information. That Form 
I -129 was also accompanied by the appropriate H -1 B supplement forms, all of which identified the 
Beneficiary as Y-R- and contained her biographical information. The remaining supporting 
documentation, however, pertained to another individual, S-D-. 
The Director issued the Petitioner a notice of intent to deny this petition ( The 
Director noted that this petition was not randomly selected under the H-lB lottery, which would 
normally result in the petition's rejection and return (with fee) to the Petitioner. However, the 
Director informed the Petitioner that this petition would not be rejected and returned, as it is a 
duplicative H-IB filing for the same Beneficiary, Y-R-. Concurrently, the Director issued a notice 
of intent to revoke the other petition ( based on the Petitioner's 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 check for [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 
fee has been cleared but we have neither receipted the receipt notice, nor the HlB 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 denied this petition ( ' and revoked the approval of the other petition 
( 1 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 
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-]." 
2 
.
Matter of A-T-S-, Inc. 
III. ANALYSIS 
We find that the Director properly denied this petition, finding that this is a multiple H-1B 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 Petitioner 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 1-129 (and accompanying supplement 
forms) which was submitted to USC IS for processing, thus filing two H -1 B petitions on her behalf. 
On appeal the Petitioner submits a copy of a Form 1-129 completed for S-D-, as well as supporting 
documentation (e.g., resume and transcripts) relating to him. However, simply submitting these 
documents on appeal does not constitute the actual filing of an H-1B petition for S-D-.
2 
The actual 
filing of an H-1B petition for S-D- could only have been accomplished through properly submitting 
a Form 1-129 (and required evidence) identifying him as the beneficiary, in accordance with all filing 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2) (filing requirements for H-1B petitions); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(l) (general filing requirements for all immigration applications and petitions). There is 
no evidence that the Petitioner did so here; instead, the record shows that the Petitioner separately 
submitted two Forms 1-129 for Y-R-. USCIS records do not indicate that the Petitioner filed any 
H-1B petitions for S-D-. 
On appeal the Petitioner questions why the check for S-D- was processed, yet USCIS maintains that 
no H-1B 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 denied and 
was revoked and for being duplicate filings, USCIS will not refund any filing 
fees notwithstanding this petition's non""selection under the H-1B 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-1B lottery). 
Finally, we note that both petitions 1 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, 
2 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 ofthe Beneficiary, from the original petition. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(E). 
3 
Matter of A-T-S-, Inc. 
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-, approval of this 
petition is prohibited pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-T-S-, Inc., ID# 379619 (AAO July 18, 2017) 
4