dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22107181 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 25, 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)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(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 petition was initially approved . However, the Director of the Vermont Service Center ultimately 
revoked the petition after issuing a notice of her intention to revoke it (NOIR), concluding that the 
general prohibition on filing multiple H-IB petitions at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) is applicable to 
this petition . 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in revoking the petition. The Petitioner bears 
the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the 
Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act defines an H-lB nonimmigrant as a foreign national "who is 
coming temporarily to the United States to perform services ... in a specialty occupation described in 
section 214(i)(l) . . . "(emphasis added). Section 214(i)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(i)(l), defines the 
term "specialty occupation" as an occupation that requires "theoretical and practical application of a 
body of highly specialized knowledge, and attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific 
specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) largely restates section 214(i)(l) of the Act but adds a non­
exhaustive list of fields of endeavor. In addition, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) provides that the 
proffered position must meet one of four criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation position. Lastly, 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(i)(A)(I) states that an H-lB classification may be granted to a foreign national 
who "will perform services in a specialty occupation . .. " (emphasis added). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) prohibits multiple "cap-subject" H-lB petitions from 
being filed in the same fiscal year for the same beneficiary by an employer, or, under certain 
circumstances, by "related entities." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) states: 
Multiple H-IB petitions. An employer may not file, in the same fiscal year, more than 
one H-1 B petition on behalf of the same [beneficiary] if [she] is subject to the 
numerical limitations of section 214(g)(l)(A) of the Act or is exempt from those 
limitations under section 2 l 4(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-lB 
petition on behalf of the same [beneficiary] 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, filing more than one H-lB petition by an employer 
on behalf of the same [beneficiary] 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 [beneficiary] 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 intent to 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-lB 
petition on behalf of the same [beneficiary], all petitions filed on [her] behalf by the 
related entities will be denied or revoked. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that on June 28, 2021, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking a cap-subject H-lB 
visa on behalf of the Beneficiary, which was approved on July 6, 2021. 1 On June 30, 2021, the 
Petitioner filed a second cap-subject H-1 B petition for the Beneficiary - which is the petition before 
us on appeal. The instant petition was approved on July 7, 2021. 
On July 27, 2021, the Director issued a NOIR in each of the petitions notifying the Petitioner of her 
intention to revoke them. She indicated therein that it appeared that the approval of the petitions 
violated the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h) or involved gross error, as the Petitioner 
had violated the general prohibition on filing multiple H-lB petitions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A)(5). The Petitioner responded to the Director's 
NOIR in the first petition by submitting an August 2021 letter requesting the withdrawal of that 
petition, asserting that it had "accidental[ly ]" submitted duplicate cap-subject petitions. The Petitioner 
did not submit a response to the NOIR issued in the instant petition; the Director revoked the petition 
in February 2022.2 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(B). 
1 See _____ which we have reviewed. 
2 In support of the appeaL the Petitioner provides a copy of the withdrawal letter that it submitted in response to the 
Director's NO IR in the first petition. The Petitioner asserts that this document is evidence that it responded to the Director's 
NOIR in the instant petition. The withdrawal letter does not reference the instant petition, nor does the record substantiate 
that this document was actually submitted in support of this petition prior to its revocation. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute that it filed two H-lB cap-subject petitions for the instant 
Beneficiary within the same fiscal year. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that it filed the instant petition 
because it "believed there may have been an error with the filing of the [first petition], mainly that the 
I-129 filing fee and premium processing checks attached to the petition were improperly submitted." 
This assertion is at odds with the explanation provided by the Petitioner's in the withdrawal letter for 
the first petition. In that letter, the Petitioner averred that the filing of the instant petition was an 
accident, not an attempt to fix filing fee issues in the first petition. Notably, the instant petition was 
filed without any explanation or supporting evidence to substantiate the Petitioner's contentions on 
appeal. We conclude that the Petitioner's contradictory statements seeking to explain why it 
impermissibly filed two cap-subjects petitions on the Beneficiary's behalf in the same fiscal year are 
of little probative value to the matter here. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. We further note 
that a single employer, as is the case here, may not file more than one cap-subject petition for the same 
beneficiary within the same fiscal cap year even if there is a legitimate business need. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G); Matter of S-Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-12 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Director erred in revoking the 
petition. Therefore, we reaffirm the Director's determination that the Petitioner impermissibly filed 
multiple cap-subject H-lB petitions in the same fiscal year for the instant Beneficiary, and that the 
general prohibition on filing multiple H-lB petitions at 8 C.F.R. § 2 l 4.2(h)(2)(i)(G) is applicable here. 
The petition will remain revoked and may not be approved. 
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. 
3