dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2024 In Re: 30240666 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-IB nonimmigrant 
classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
10l(a)(l5)(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 nonimmigrant 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 California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
submitted multiple H-lB registrations for the Beneficiary in the same fiscal year, thus requiring the 
denial of all registrations filed by the Petitioner on behalf of the Beneficiary. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally reiterates the same arguments made in response to the Director's 
notice of intent to deny. The Petitioner explains it submitted the initial registration with the 
Beneficiary's incorrect date of birth and therefore submitted a second registration as a good faith effort 
to correct the erroneous birth date. In addition, the Petitioner contends the two registrations are not 
for the same Beneficiary because they do not share the same date of birth. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 l&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). Although the Petitioner contends it filed a second 
registration as a good faith effort to correct an error made in the first registration, the Petitioner did 
not provide any law or regulation that allows us to waive or disregard any of the Act's requirements, 
as implemented by regulation, for human error. In addition, on appeal the Petitioner now contends 
that the two registrations are not for the same Beneficiary since they do not share the same date of 
birth, but this statement contradicts earlier admissions from the Petitioner that it filed a second 
registration for the same Beneficiary to correct an error made in the first registration. In addition, both 
registrations contain the Beneficiary's same passport information. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 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. 
2