dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 211813 00 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 28, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(HXi)(b) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15XH)(iXb). 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 Vermont Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129 , Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner violated the general prohibition on filing multiple H-lB petitions for the 
same Beneficiary in the same fiscal year under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h )(2)(i)(G). 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; MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369,375 (AAO 2010). 
We review the questions in this matter de nova . Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 
(AAO 2015). Upon de novoreview, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The regulation prohibiting the filing of multiple H-lB petitions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) states 
in pertinent part: 
Multiple H-1 B petitions. An employer may not file, in the same fiscal year, more than 
one H-1 B petition on behalf of the same [ foreign national] if the [ foreign national] 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. ... Otherwise , filing 
more than one H-lB petition by an employer on behalf of the same [foreign national] 
in the same fiscal year will result in the denial or revocation of all such petitions. If 
USCIS 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 [fore ign national] 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, USCIS may issue a request for additional evidence or notice 
of intentto 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-IB petition on behalf of the 
same [foreign national], all petitions filed on that [foreign national's] behalf by the 
related entities will be denied or revoked. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In this scenario, the Petitioner filed two H-IB petitions due to what they characterize as confusion 
emanating from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) relating to the correct address 
they should use to file petitions on certain dates. The first form of evidence the Petitioner relied upon 
originated from USCIS' Alerts portion of our website, which we were able to verify. 1 The second 
form of evidence the Petitioner relied on contains text indicating that it originated from an external 
entity. This second document contains mailing infonnation that does not align with the material on 
the USCIS website. 
We also note the procedural history relating to the petition before us on appeal, which we will ref er to 
as Petition 1. The Petitioner filed Petition 1, and after the Director discovered the multiple petitions 
issue, they issued a notice of intent to deny (NOID) on this petition, then mistakenly applied the 
withdrawal request for the second petition (Petition 2) to this petition. The Director and acknowledged 
the withdrawal request and considered Petition I to have been withdrawn. The Director noted its 
mistake and reopened Petition I then ultimately denied Petition I because of the multiple filing issue. 
We offer a chronological timeline of events for clarity: 
March 23, 2021 The date the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's registration for possible 
selection toward the fiscal year 2022 H-1 B numerical cap projections. 
The date USCIS notified the Petitioner that their registration for the 
March 27, 2021 Beneficiary was selected. Within that notice, USCIS informed the Petitioner 
that they were eligible to file a corresponding H-1 B petition between April 
l, 2021, and June 30, 2021. 
April l, 2021 The date the H-1 B cap petition filing season opened in which the Petitioner 
was eligible to file an H-lB petition on the Beneficiary's behalf. 
On USCTS' Alerts portion of its website, the date the agency posted 
June 14, 2021 instructions for addresses in which to mail various types of filings to the 
Vermont Service Center. 
According to a USCIS notice, the date the agency received Petition 1. This 
June 17, 2021 was confirmed by a United Parcel Service (UPS) document that the 
Petitioner provides on appeal as exhibit 5. 
The date on the document from the external entity that contained 
June l 7, 2021 information conflicting with the USCTS website regarding where to mail 
documentation to the Vermont Service Center. 
June 30, 2021 The date USCTS sent a notice to the Petitioner reflecting that the agency 
received Petition 1. 
June 30 2021 The H-1 B cap petition filing deadline date. 
1 Vermont Service Center Address Change, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Apr. 25, 2022), 
https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/vermont-service-center-address-change. 
2 
June 30, 2021 According to a USCrS notice, the date the agency received Petition 2. 
July 14, 2021 The date the Petitioner claims that they received the June 1 7, 2021, USCrS 
notice that the agency had received Petition 1. 
July 16, 2021 The date users sent a notice to the Petitioner reflecting that the agency 
received Petition 2. 
July 30, 2021 The date the Petitioner claims that they received the July 16, 2021, USCrS 
notice that the agency had received Petition 2. 
August 12, 2021 The date the Petitioner claims that they requested withdrawal of Petition 2. 
August 25, 2021 The date USCrS issued a NOID on Petition 1. 
August 3 1, 2021 The date Petitioner's counsel claims they received the NOID. 
September 13, 2021 The date of the physical USCrS receipt stamp for Petition 2 withdrawal 
request. 
Within the appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in refusing to accept is explanation for 
the multiple filings. Additionally, the Petitioner states that due to the conflicting filing address 
information it was forced to file Petition2 with users on the last possible date to file an H-lB petition 
for the fiscal year 2022 cap. When the Petitioner made that decision to file Petition 2, it relied on one 
form of evidence that originated from users, and one from an external entity. We note that the 
information originating from the agency's website should be considered as reliable relating to the 
address in which to mail documents. 
However, regarding the second form of evidence originating from an external entity, this appears to 
be an email, but it does not contain any recipient information in the "To:" field. Further, it does not 
appear to be communication from users to the Petitioner, to their counsel, or even to the public. This 
external entity document contained information that conflicted with USCrS' website. Additionally, 
we were unable to confirm the information within the second form of evidence on USCrS' Alerts 
website. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this email was a form of communication 
to them, or to the public in general, that they should have relied upon. Consequently, we do not view 
their basis for submitting the second petition to be one that is the fault of the agency. The Petitioner 
has not established that confusion created from an external entity document-one that was not 
presented to the public or the Petitioner from USCrS-should serve as a sufficient basis to overcome 
the Director's adverse decision. 
Even setting that aside, we conclude that the petition should remain denied. The Petitioner filed 
Petition 2 on June 30, 2021, and claims they received the notice that Petition 1 was accepted for filing 
on July 14, 2021. The Petitioner further claims that they waited more than four weeks to attempt to 
rectify the multiple H-lB petition filings by requesting the withdrawal of Petition 2 on August 12, 
2021. However, they did not indicate whether August 12th was the date they mailed the request or 
the date that users received it. 
And the Petitioner does not off er evidence of the actual date that users received their withdrawal 
request. The physical receipt stamp reflected on the parcel for the withdrawal request was dated 
September 13, 2021. Although the withdrawal request letter within that parcel was dated August 5, 
2021, again the Petitioner did not offer evidence reflecting the date that it mailed the material, nor the 
date that users received this request. As the Petitioner sent this material via UPS next day air, and 
3 
the Director receipt stamped it on September 13th, this does not corroborate the Petitioner's claim that 
it sent the withdrawal request on August 12, 2021. 
Additionally, the Director issued the NOID on August 25th and the Petitioner claims it received it on 
August 31st. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that it attempted to rectify the multiple H-lB 
petition filings issue until well after it received the NOID. The fact that the Petitioner withdrew one 
of those petitions after the Director issued a NOID on the petition does notabsolvethem of the multiple 
filing bar. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l 5). As mentioned, the bar requires all petitions filed on behalf of 
the foreign national to be denied or revoked. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). We note that the Petitioner 
does not identify a discretionary authority by which we may waive this requirement. 
After reviewing the record, we conclude that subsequent to the Petitioner filing two petitions for the 
same individual who was subject to the H-1 B cap within the same fiscal year-although it withdrew 
one of those petitions after the Director raised the issue in a NO ID-that late-performed act did not 
relieve it of performing a prohibited act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not overcome the rebuttable 
presumption posed by 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(h)(2)(i)(G), and approval of the petition is therefore prohibited. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden here, and the petition will remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4