dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 04, 2025 In Re: 36673779 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimrnigrant 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 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimrnigrant Worker (petition) 
after issuing a notice of intent to deny (NOID), concluding the Petitioner submitted an attestation that was 
not complete, true, and correct, and it failed to establish the registration was properly submitted in 
accordance with the regulations and form instructions. Specifically, that the Petitioner worked with 
another individual, entity, or organization to submit multiple registrations to unfairly increase the chances 
of selection for this petition's Beneficiary. The Director also included a finding of fraud and willful 
misrepresentation as an additional basis to deny the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 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. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To ensure a fair and equitable allocation of the available H-lB visas in any given fiscal year, USCIS has 
instituted the registration requirement contained at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(J). A petitioner must 
register to file a petition on behalf of a beneficiary electronically and they must properly submit a 
registration as governed by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) and the applicable form instructions to render a 
petitioner eligible to file an H-lB petition. Additionally, they are precluded from submitting more than 
one registration for each beneficiary in any fiscal year or they run the risk of USCIS considering all their 
registrations invalid, and the agency "may deny or revoke the approval of any H-1 B petition filed for the 
beneficiary based on those registrations." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). Alternatively, "[i]f USCIS 
determines that registrations were submitted for the same beneficiary by the same or different registrants, 
but using different identifying information, USCIS may find those registrations invalid and deny or 
revoke the approval of any H-lB petition filed based on those registrations." Id. 
Furthermore, a petitioner submitting a registration is required to attest under penalty of perjury that the 
registration reflects a legitimate job offer and they have not worked with----or agreed to work 
with-another registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to submit a registration to unfairly 
increase the chances of selection for the beneficiary in that specific registration. IfUSCIS 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), USCIS will find that the registration was not properly submitted. The agency's enforcement 
of the attestation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2) renders a petitioner ineligible to file a 
petition based on that registration under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(]). This attestation obligation is a 
valid requirement. LeadIC Design USA LLC, et al. v. USCIS, No. 23-CV-06590-HSG, 2025 WL 458246, 
at *4--5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Multiple Registrations Versus Multiple Petitions 
In March of 2023, the Petitioner registered the Beneficiary twice in the Fiscal Year 2024 H-lB cap 
registration, albeit with two different passports. Another entity also registered the Beneficiary on the 
same dates with the same passports. In denying the petition, the Director determined the Petitioner is 
related to and worked with another company,! Ito file multiple registrations for the 
Beneficiary to unfairly increase the chances of selection and that it made a false attestation when it 
submitted its H-1 B registration. 1 
The Director stated that this conclusion was based upon open source and USCIS records which show 
that the Petitioner andl Iare related entities, and that the two companies submitted 
overlapping H-lB registrations for 20 individuals, including for the Beneficiary. The Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's NOID response where it attempted to explain it registered the 
Beneficiary the second time because it realized it performed the initial registration with her expired 
passport. 
The Director concluded their claims were not sufficient or salient to the issues detailed in the NOID. 
The Director noted several shortcomings: 
• The Petitioner's signatory on this petition failed to adequately address that his spouse served 
as the president of I 
• The signatory here admitted he serves as an employee ofl I 
• He admitted to using a computer belonging to I to register the Beneficiary; 
1 At the time of submission, the H-1 B registration form required certifying the following attestation: "I further certify that this 
registration ( or these registrations) reflects a legitimate job offer and that I, or the organization on whose behalf this registration 
( or these registrations) is being submitted, have not worked with, or agreed to work with, another registrant, petitioner, agent, 
or other individual or entity to submit a registration to unfairly increase chances of selection for the beneficiary or beneficiaries 
in this submission." 
2 
• Both companies' registered office is at the same address; 
• Both entities utilized the same immigration attorney to file their H-lB petitions; and 
• The NOID response did not address why two separate related companies submitted the 
Beneficiary for the H-1 B registration twice and in the same manner relating to the dates and 
passports. 
The Director then decided the Petitioner did not establish that the registration was properly submitted, 
and as a result, it was not eligible to file an H-lB petition based on the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). That regulatory provision contains the following requirements: 
Registration requirement. Except as provided in paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of this section, 
before a petitioner can file an H-lB cap-subject petition for a beneficiary ... , the 
petitioner must register to file a petition on behalf of a beneficiary electronically 
through the USCIS website (www.uscis.gov). To be eligible to file a petition for a 
beneficiary who may be counted against the H-lB regular cap or the H-lB advanced 
degree exemption for a particular fiscal year, a registration must be properly submitted 
in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(a)(l), paragraph (h)(8)(iii) of this section, and the form 
instructions, for the same fiscal year. 
And as we noted earlier, the Director also included a finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation based 
on the specific facts of this case. 
On various appellate documents the Petitioner stated it was not appealing the multiple registration aspect 
ofthe denial because they were not aware that multiple registrations by the same employer is an automatic 
denial, but instead they were only appealing the finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation. The 
Director's NOID and denial cited to-and quoted-the regulation prohibiting more than one registration 
for a beneficiary regardless of whether it was by the same or different registrants 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). We therefore consider the Petitioner and their counsel to be adequately informed 
of the requirements of which they claim no knowledge. 
Despite the Petitioner claiming in the appeal that it was not contesting the multiple registrations issue, it 
still states: "According to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), there is no restriction on multiple H-lB cap 
registrations filed by related entities, provided the related entities can each demonstrate a legitimate 
business need." But the Petitioner has confused two distinct regulatory provisions here and they misstate 
what the relevant regulation provides. The regulation cited within this quote pertains to filing multiple 
H-IB petitions in the same fiscal year. However, that is not the issue within the Director's denial: 
multiple registrations by a petitioner in a single fiscal year in violation of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2 l 4.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). As a result, we will not provide any further analysis to the Petitioner's arguments 
relating to their misapplication of the regulation, nor will we address their legitimate business need 
arguments. 
And the Petitioner argues in the appeal brief that it has a legitimate job offer for the Beneficiary. But the 
legitimate job offer portion of the attestation requirements was not a subject the Director broached in the 
3 
denial decision. Because that topic is not one of the bases for denial, we will not address it further in this 
decision. 
The petitioning organization cites to Matter ofS-, Adopted Decision 2018-02 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018) for 
related companies. Matter ofS- is based on a separate regulation and governs prohibitions on cap subject 
H-lB petitions; not registrations. The Director did not cite to Matter of S- and the regulation does not 
extrapolate that adopted decision into the picture. Instead, the Director described the violation as "it has 
not worked with, or agreed to work with, another registrant, petitioner, agent, other individual or entity to 
submit a registration to unfairly increase chances of selection for the beneficiary or beneficiaries in its 
submission." We therefore will not offer any additional analysis relating to Matter of S- as it is not 
applicable in this case. 
Accompanying the appeal, the Petitioner submits a new statement and additional evidence relating to the 
viability of the offered position. The statement contains some of the same reasons the Petitioner provided 
to the Director explaining why they submitted more than one registration on the Beneficiary's behalf, as 
well as some new content. Nonetheless, as those arguments stem from their unrelated claims regarding 
the filing of multiple petitions-and not the filing of multiple registrations-we will not address them 
here. 
B. Fraud Versus a Material Misrepresentation 
That brings us to the second portion of the Director's decision; the fraud and material misrepresentation 
findings. The Director discussed these aspects separately from their multiple registration determination. 
To establish a filing party has committed fraud, all the following elements must be present: 
1. The person procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws; 
2. The person made a false representation; 
3. The false representation was willfully made; 
4. The false representation was material; 
5. The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, generally an immigration or 
consular officer; 2 
6. The false representation was made with the intent to deceive a U.S. government official 
authorized to act upon the request (generally an immigration or consular officer);3 and 
7. The U.S. government official believed and acted upon the false representation by granting the 
benefit.4 
To establish a filing party has made a material representation, USCIS must only demonstrate the above 
items 1-5. See generally 8 USCIS Policy Manual J.2(D), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. And 
items 1-5 are the elements the Director discussed in the NOID and the decision, and we agree with their 
assessment as it relates to the Petitioner committing a material misrepresentation. Because the Director 
did not allege and demonstrate items 6-7, they did not establish the Petitioner committed the necessary 
2 Matter ofY-G-, 20 l&N Dec. 794, 796 (BIA 1994). 
3 Matter ofTijam, 22 l&N Dec. 408, 424 (BIA 1998). 
4 MatterofG-G-. 7 l&N Dec. 161 (BIA 1956). 
4 
elements for fraud. As a result, we affirm the misrepresentation determination but withdraw the fraud 
finding. 
That leaves the misrepresentation issue as the only aspect the Petitioner claims it is contesting within this 
appeal. While we note the Petitioner states several times within the appeal that it was contesting the 
misrepresentation determination, the only material they offer to address that opinion is a statement in 
which they focus on the topic we already noted would not be addressed here because it is not applicable; 
a legitimate business need for submitting multiple H-lB petitions. The Petitioner offers a reason why 
their filing violated multiple H-1 B requirements, but they fail to directly address the factors the Director 
raised in the bulleted list we outlined above under subsection A. 
As a result, the Petitioner has addressed the issue in a deficient manner in the appeal brief, and they have 
not meaningfully challenged the Director's misrepresentation determination. This is an inadequate basis 
to file the appeal as issues a filing party does not meaningfully challenge are waived. Matter ofGarcia, 
28 I&N Dec. 693, 693 (BIA 2023) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012). 
Filing parties must do more than "merely mention an alleged error." Karsjens v. Harpstead, 74 F.4th 
561, 568 n.3 (8th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 814 (2024) (quoting Sitzer v. Nat'! Ass 'n ofRealtors, 
12 F.4th 853, 855 n.2 (8th Cir. 2021). A passing reference in a brief will not suffice to preserve an issue 
for appeal and we will consider such a fleeting reference to waive the issue. Id. 
To summarize, the Petitioner first claimed it would not address the multiple registration prohibition issue, 
but it attempted to with an inapplicable argument pertaining to a different regulatory requirement. Then 
they did not offer a meaningful challenge to the specific factors that led the Director to decide they 
committed a material misrepresentation. And as we previously noted, we are withdrawing the Director's 
fraud finding but are leaving the material misrepresentation determination in place. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5