dismissed H-1B Case: Software Quality Assurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 12, 2023 In Re : 27361002 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
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 
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S .C. § 110l(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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner worked with another registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to submit a 
registration to unfairly increase the chances of selection in the H-lB lottery for the beneficiary . The 
Director also concluded that the Petitioner's proffered job was not a specialty occupation . ' 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. IMPROPER REGISTRATION AND INELIGIBILITY TO FILE PETITION 
A. Legal Framework 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for 
specialty occupations. See section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) of the Act. The H-lB program is a numerically 
1 We will reserve our opinion regarding whether the Petitioner 's proffered job is a specialty occupation because the 
disposition of the issue of the Petitioner's improper coordination with another entity to unfairly increase the chances of 
selection in the H-lB lottery for the Beneficiary is sufficient to resolve this matter and determine the outcome of this 
appeal. See INS v Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach ''); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
limited benefit. H-lB visas are numerically limited, or "capped," to 65,000 per fiscal year pursuant 
to section 214(g)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.e. § 1184(g)(l)(A). An annual exemption from the 
numerical limitations of section 214(g)(l)(A) of the Act is available under section 214(g)(5)(e), 
8 U.S.e. § 1184(g)(5)(e), for beneficiaries who have earned a master's or higher degree from a U.S. 
institution of higher educational until 20,000 qualifying beneficiaries are exempted. 
To ensure a fair and equitable allocation of the available H-lB visas in any given fiscal year, users 
has instituted the registration requirement contained at 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(i). A petitioner 
must register to file a petition on behalf of a non-citizen beneficiary electronically and a registration 
must be properly submitted pursuant to 8 e.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) and the applicable form instructions to 
render a petitioner eligible to file an H-lB petition. 
A petitioner submitting a registration is required to attest under penalty of perjury that they have not 
worked with or agreed to work with another registrant, petition, agent, or other individual or entity to 
submit a registration to unfairly increase the chances of selection for the beneficiary in that specific 
registration. IfUSeIS finds that this attestation was not true and correct (for example, that a company 
worked with another entity to submit multiple registrations for the same beneficiary to unfairly 
increase chances of selection for that beneficiary), users will find that the registration was not 
properly submitted. This renders a petitioner ineligible to file a petition based on that registration 
pursuant to 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). 
B. Procedural and Factual History 
The Petitioner submitted their H-lB registration for the Beneficiary on March 14, 2022. The Director 
notified the Petitioner of the selection of their registration for the Beneficiary on March 26, 2022. The 
Petitioner filed this petition on June 29, 2022 to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a software 
quality assurance tester under section 101 (a)( 15)(H)(i)(B) of the Act at their principal place of business 
i~ INew Jersey. 
On September 9, 2022, the Director issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition because it 
appeared that the Petitioner has worked with another registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual 
or entity to submit multiple registrations to unfairly increase the chances of selection for the 
Beneficiary. The Director specifically described the following points of concern: 
• 
• 
• The signatory on the Petitioner's petitions,! lis an employee otj 
• 
• 
The Petitioner and a separate entity,! I filed H-lB cap registrations on behalf of 
the same 39 individual beneficiaries. 
I I website lists las its "Director - IT Sales" I ~----~ 
Documentation submitted with petitions filed byl I include a letter to ....
Inc. informing them that several of their employees have access to their principal place of 
business includingl, 
l_____. 
I 
H-lB petitions filedbyj and the Petitioner include documentation with identical 
formatting and language. 
I
The Petitioner responded to the NOID and stated that they had not "misused any rules relating to 
registration and [did] not unfairly increase the chances of lottery selection" for the Beneficiary. They 
2 
I 
stated that._______ ___. employment with I I had terminated as of February 27, 
2022, which is prior to the date the H-1 B registration was filed. They attested that the did not have 
an ownership, agent, or employee relationship with I IThey advised,....t_h_a____ --,_____. 
served as an officer and "Director - IT" at the Petitioner and stated ;::.th::.::a::..:.t2....,::.::li::.::k:..:.e.!:::::::=::::;------' the 
Petitioner also did not have any ownershi or a ency relationship with I I In support they 
submitted a notarized letter from memorializing the termination of1 
employment with.__ ____ __,, stating that they have no "ownership or agency rights with them," 
and claiming that they are the Petitioner's "Director of Sales - IT" since March 1, 2022. The Petitioner 
also submitted a master services agreement accompanied by a statement of work designated "Schedule 
A" corresponding to an agreement between themselves and I I for their services. The 
Petitioner did not, however, provide any evidence, documentation, or information to address the 
specific points of concern raised by the Director in the NOID. The Director consequently denied the 
petition on November 17, 2022. 
On appeal, the Petitioner substantially repeats their contention neither they norl lhas 
any ownership or agency relationship with I I They farther state that they are "owned 
100% byl µnd by no other person or entity." In support of their appeal they resubmit 
documentation rovided in res onse to the NOID as well as new documents in the form of a letter 
from stating thatl lhas not been an employee of 
since February 27, 2022. Once again the Petitioner provides no evidence,~-----~ documentation, or information to address the specific points of concern raised by the Director in the 
NOID and their decision. 
C. Analysis 
The Director had a well-founded concern supported by unrebutted facts that the Petitioner coordinated 
withI I to unfairly increase the chances of the selection of the Beneficiary in the H-1 B 
lottery. The Petitioner strenuousl} attempts to distance themselves from any ownership or agency 
relationship with I But coordination between parties does not require a shared 
ownership or agency relationship. The attestation required of a petitioner submitting a registration 
requires they certify that they have not worked with, or agreed to work with, another registrant, 
petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity. 
And even if an ownership or agency relationship between the Petitioner andl lwas 
relevant to evaluate whether the Petitioner had worked withl Ito unfairly increase the 
Beneficiary's chances of selection in the H-lB lottery, evidence in the record casts doubt on the 
Petitioner's statements in connection with these proceedings. For example, the Petitioner stated in the 
NOID response and at appeal that they had stopped working forl Ias of February 27, 
2022. However, as the Director noted, they signed a master service agreement on behalf of the 
Petitioner as identified as their "Director - IT Sales" on June 28, 2021, which was more than 7 months 
prior to the commencement of their employment with the Petitioner. 
And, upon de novo review, we have identified additional facts and inconsistencies that cast farther 
doubt on the Petitioner's submission of a proper H-lB registration that would render it eligible to file 
this petition. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions,! Idoes not appear to be the 
3 
Petitioner's sole owner. The Petitioner's sole shareholder according to information contained the 
Petitioner's Form 1120-S Schedule K-1 is~-----~ 
Moreover, the attorney or agent listed on the labor condition application (LCA) submitted in support 
of the petition is I I The registrant email address listed inI I H-1 B 
registration for the Beneficiary is ._____________ ___. Whilst it is unclear whether 
I lis an interested third-party or an employee of the Petitioner orl ~ it is yet 
another unresolved commonality that fits into a larger picture of coordination and connection between 
the Petitioner andl I 
The specific unresolved facts described by the Director loom large as they indicate a level of 
coordination and information sharing between the Petitioner and I !beyond what could 
reasonably be explained as coincidence or happenstance. The Petitioner has not addressed how they 
and I I submitted 39 registrations with the same beneficiary in common, including the 
Beneficiary of this petition. The record does not contain any explanation for why, purportedly months 
after the Petitioner's signatory employment was terminated with I I 
thatl !continued to have access to~-----~ principal place of business and was 
listed asl l"Director - IT Sales" on their website. The Petitioner has not submitted 
any documentation or information to resolve the concerns raised by the identical formatting and 
language contained in the H-lB petitions filed byl land the Petitioner. 
The misstatements, inconsistencies, and unresolved factual concerns contained in the record as it is 
currently composed paint a picture of considerable unreliability. Doubt cast on any aspect of a 
petitioner's proof may lead to doubts about the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
in support of the visa petition. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
III. CONCLUSION 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4