remanded H-1B Case: Optical And Ethernet Transport Solutions

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7144585 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 8, 2021 
The Petitioner, an optical and ethemet transport solutions developer, 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. § 1101(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 Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner violated 
the general prohibition on filing multiple H-lB petitions for the same Beneficiary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), and dismissed a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner provided a reasonable explanation regarding the 
submission of the second petition. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that the submission of the 
second petition was accidental due to a clerical mistake, and provides evidence explaining the nature 
of the error. We further note that the second petition was not accompanied by the required fees and 
thereby was rejected by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as improperly filed. In 
sum, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 
it did not violate multiple filings prohibition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) . The Petitioner has 
provided evidence demonstrating that the submission of the second petition was not intentional. 
Further, USCIS records demonstrate that the second petition was rejected and did not retain a filing 
date. Consequently, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the petition for further 
review of the record on its merits and issuance of a new decision. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision.