remanded H-1B Case: Real Estate / Gis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9042113 
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 . 12, 2020 
The Petitioner, a real estate brokerage, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "senior GIS 
analyst" under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. 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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
improperly submitted more than one petition for the same beneficiary in the same fiscal year. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate el igibi I ity by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the 
questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a 
new decision. 
Generally, "filing more than one H-lB petition by an employer on behalf of the same alien in the same 
fiscal year will result in the denial or revocation of all such petitions." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 
However, petitioners routinely include a second courtesy copy of an H-lB petition to assist the 
Kentucky Consular Center's post-adjudication processing into the Petition Information Management 
Service. See, e.g., Department of Homeland Security, Recommendations to Improve the Petitioner 
Information Management Service (PIMS) (Dec. 21, 2015), https://www.dhs.gov/recommendations­
improve-petitioner-information-management-service-pims. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it did not submit more than one petition on behalf of the same 
Beneficiary for this petition. Instead, the Petitioner establishes that, on March 29, 2019, it submitted 
two separate petitions for two separate beneficiaries, and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) received those petitions on April 1. Although USCIS assigned a receipt number on 
May 23 to the petition on appeal, USCIS assigned the second petition-also received on April 1-a 
receipt number on August 12, after receiving the Petitioner's response to a notice of intent to deny the 
petition on appeal. Both petitions request USCIS to notify a U.S. Consulate if the respective petition 
is approved. 
We reviewed the contents of the second receipt number's file, on which the Director's conclusion 
regarding multiple filings is based. The second file contains a photocopy of the initial submission of 
the petition on appeal, in addition to an initial filing for a separate beneficiary, matching the name 
referenced on the FedEx shipping label for that submission. Both petitions in the second file bear an 
identical receipt barcode. Because the second receipt number's file contains a photocopy of the initial 
submission of the petition on appeal, in addition to an initial filing for a separate beneficiary, which 
bears the receipt barcode for that file, we do not consider the second file to willfully violate the 
prohibition of multiple filings described at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). Instead, the second file 
appears to erroneously contain the courtesy copy of the petition on appeal, routinely included for post­
adjudication processing and consistent with the request for consular notification, in addition to a 
separate petition for a distinct beneficiary, which was sent and received simultaneously with the 
petition on appeal.1 Accordingly, neither submission should have been denied for the stated reason 
and instead should be reviewed as separately filed on behalf of two distinct beneficiaries. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
1 We further note that the decision for the second file does not acknowledge that half of its contents pertain to a separate 
beneficiary, whose name matches the name referenced on the FedEx shipping label for that submission. In turn, although 
the final page of the file for the petition on appeal is an orange sheet of paper, stating "KCC COPY Please forward to KCC 
after approval," a courtesy copy does not follow it. 
2