Matter of S- Inc.

March 23, 2018 PM-602-0159 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Matter of S- Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-02 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018) Purpose This policy memorandum (PM) designates the attached decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in Matter of S- Inc. as an Adopted Decision. Accordingly, this adopted decision establishes policy guidance that applies to and shall be used to guide determinations by all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees. USCIS personnel are directed to follow the reasoning in this decision in similar cases. Matter of S- Inc. addresses the prohibition on multiple H-1B filings by “related entities (such as a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate).” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). For purposes of the regulatory bar, Matter of S- Inc. clarifies that the term “related entities” includes petitioners, whether or not related through corporate ownership and control, that file cap-subject H-1B petitions for the same beneficiary for substantially the same job. Absent a legitimate business need to file multiple cap-subject petitions for the same beneficiary, USCIS will deny or revoke the approval of all H-1B cap-subject petitions filed by “related entities” for that beneficiary. Use This PM is intended solely for the guidance of USCIS personnel in the performance of their official duties. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner. Contact Information Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate directorate channels to the AAO.

2018年3月23日 PM-602-0159 政策备忘录 主题：Matter of S- Inc.，采纳决定 2018-02（AAO 2018年3月23日） 目的 本政策备忘录（PM）将行政上诉办公室（AAO）在 Matter of S- Inc. 中附上的决定指定为采纳决定。因此，本采纳决定确立了政策指导，适用于并应被用于指导所有美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS）雇员的裁定。USCIS人员被指示在类似案件中遵循本决定中的推理。 Matter of S- Inc. 涉及禁止“相关实体（例如母公司、子公司或关联公司）”提交多份H-1B申请的规定。8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)。就监管禁令而言，Matter of S- Inc. 澄清，“相关实体”一词包括为同一受益人、就实质相同的工作提交受配额限制的H-1B申请的申请人，无论是否通过公司所有权和控制权相关联。在缺乏为同一受益人提交多份受配额限制申请的合法商业需要的情况下，USCIS将拒绝或撤销“相关实体”为该受益人提交的所有受配额限制的H-1B申请的批准。 使用 本PM仅供USCIS人员履行公务时作为指导。其不意图、也不得被依赖以创设任何权利或利益，无论是实体性的还是程序性的，可在法律上或由任何个人或其他当事方在驱逐程序中、在与美国的诉讼中、或以任何其他形式或方式强制执行。 联系信息 有关本PM的问题或建议应通过适当的局渠道向AAO提出。

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

行政上诉办公室 美国公民及移民服务局

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

国土安全部

March 23, 2018 [1] “Related entities” include petitioners, whether or not related through corporate ownership and control, that file cap-subject H-1B petitions for the same beneficiary for substantially the same job. Absent a legitimate business need to file multiple cap-subject petitions for the same beneficiary, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will deny or revoke the approval of all H-1B cap-subject petitions filed by related entities for that beneficiary. FOR THE PETITIONER: Samuel Alemu, Esquire, Schaumburg, Illinois The Petitioner, a software development and consulting firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an H-1B nonimmigrant to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a “programmer analyst.” The Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Vermont Service Center revoked the petition’s approval on notice, concluding the Petitioner and a “related entity,” C- LLC, impermissibly filed petitions for the same beneficiary. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts the Director erred in finding the entities were related. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. Employer demand often exceeds the annual, statutorily capped supply of new visas under the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. 2 To promote fair and orderly access to these visas, USCIS may conduct a random lottery of cap-subject petitions received by a certain date. Those petitions selected through the lottery proceed to adjudication if otherwise properly filed; USCIS rejects the remainder.

2018年3月23日 [1] “相关实体”包括为同一受益人、就实质相同的工作提交受配额限制的H-1B申请的申请人，无论是否通过公司所有权和控制权相关联。在缺乏为同一受益人提交多份受配额限制申请的合法商业需要的情况下，美国公民及移民服务局将拒绝或撤销相关实体为该受益人提交的所有受配额限制的H-1B申请的批准。 申请人代表：Samuel Alemu，Esquire，伊利诺伊州绍姆堡 申请人是一家软件开发与咨询公司，寻求将受益人归类为H-1B非移民，以临时雇用受益人担任“程序员分析师”。美国公民及移民服务局（USCIS）佛蒙特服务中心主任经通知撤销了该申请的批准，认定申请人与一家“相关实体”C- LLC不可允许地为同一受益人提交了申请。在上诉中，申请人提交了额外证据，并主张主任认定这些实体相关存在错误。经重新审查，我们将驳回上诉。 雇主需求往往超过H-1B非移民分类下每年法定配额的新签证供应量。2 为促进公平有序地获取这些签证，USCIS可以对在某一日期前收到的受配额限制申请进行随机抽签。通过抽签选中的申请，如果其他方面提交适当，则进入裁定程序；USCIS退回其余申请。

Matter of S- Inc. Adopted Decision Petitioning employers sometimes try to improve their chances of winning the initial lottery selection by submitting multiple petitions on behalf of the same beneficiary without a legitimate business need to do so. USCIS regulations deter and penalize this tactic by requiring denial or revocation of all petitions for that common beneficiary filed by the same employer, or filed by “related” employers if any of them has not demonstrated a “legitimate business need” to file those petitions. The latter scenario gets more complicated when, as here, a petitioner demonstrates it is not “related” to the other employer through corporate ownership and control, but other factors evident from the record nonetheless demonstrate the existence of a relationship.

Matter of S- Inc. 采纳决定 申请雇主有时试图通过在没有合法商业需要的情况下为同一受益人提交多份申请，来提高赢得初始抽签选择的机会。USCIS法规通过要求拒绝或撤销同一雇主为该共同受益人提交的所有申请，或者如果“相关”雇主中任何一方未能证明提交这些申请的“合法商业需要”，则拒绝或撤销这些相关雇主提交的所有申请，来遏制并惩罚这一策略。后一种情形在如下情况下变得更加复杂：如本案，申请人证明其与其他雇主并非通过公司所有权和控制权“相关”，但记录中显而易见的其他因素仍然证明存在关系。

I. BAR ON MULTIPLE H-1B FILINGS The regulatory bar on multiple cap-subject H-1B filings states, in pertinent part:

I. 禁止多份H-1B申请 关于禁止多份受配额限制H-1B申请的法规相关规定如下：

An employer may not file, in the same fiscal year, more than one H-1B petition on behalf of the same alien if the alien is subject to the numerical limitations of section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act or is exempt from those limitations under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act. . . . 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-1B petition on behalf of the same alien . . . , 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-1B petition on behalf of the same alien, all petitions filed on that alien’s behalf by the related entities will be denied or revoked. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) (emphasis added).

雇主不得在同一财政年度内为同一外国人提交超过一份H-1B申请，如果该外国人受该法第214(g)(1)(A)条的数量限制约束，或根据该法第214(g)(5)(C)条豁免于这些限制。……如果USCIS认为相关实体（例如母公司、子公司或关联公司）可能没有合法商业需要为同一外国人提交超过一份H-1B申请……，USCIS可以发出补充证据请求或拒绝意向通知，或撤销每份申请的意向通知。如果任何相关实体未能证明为同一外国人提交H-1B申请的合法商业需要，相关实体为该外国人提交的所有申请将被拒绝或撤销。 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)（强调为后加）。

II. BACKGROUND In its notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the petition, the Director found the Petitioner and C- LLC were “related entities” that filed H-1B petitions for the same Beneficiary in violation of the above rule. The Director found that the petitions were filed during the same fiscal year for the same Beneficiary to work in substantially the same job for the same end-client through the same two vendors. 3 The Director also observed the similar, and at times identical, evidence submitted by the two petitioners for the Beneficiary. 4 The Petitioner replied by denying that C- LLC and it are “related entities.” The Petitioner submitted separate articles of incorporation, corporate by-laws, stock certificates, stock transfer ledgers, operating agreements, federal employer identification number information (FEIN), federal tax returns, and leases for its company and C- LLC. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of USCIS’s notice

II. 背景 在撤销申请意向通知（NOIR）中，主任认定申请人和C- LLC是“相关实体”，为同一受益人提交H-1B申请违反了上述规则。主任认定，这些申请是在同一财政年度内为同一受益人提交的，目的是通过相同的两家供应商为同一最终客户从事实质相同的工作。3 主任还注意到两个申请人为该受益人提交的证据相似，有时完全相同。4 申请人答复时否认C- LLC与其是“相关实体”。申请人提交了其公司和C- LLC各自的公司章程、公司章程细则、股票证书、股票转让账簿、经营协议、联邦雇主识别号信息（FEIN）、联邦纳税申报表和租赁合同。申请人还提交了一份USCIS通知的副本，

2

2

Matter of S- Inc. Adopted Decision acknowledging C- LLC’s withdrawal of its petition for the Beneficiary, dated after the Director’s initial approval of this petition. In its subsequent revocation notice, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner and C- LLC have separate FEINs, operation locations, management, and ownership. The Director found that the Petitioner and C- LLC are not related to each other as a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate. But based on the similarities between the two petitions, both filed for the Beneficiary to work in substantially the same job at the same end-client, the Director concluded that the Petitioner and C- LLC are nevertheless “related” for purposes of the multiple filing bar at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the relevant regulatory text - “related entities (such as affiliates, subsidiaries, or a parent company)” - refers only to entities that are related through corporate ownership and control. The Petitioner disagrees with the Director’s interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) to include companies that are related in other ways as well.

Matter of S- Inc. 采纳决定 该通知确认C- LLC撤回了其为该受益人提交的申请，日期在主任最初批准本申请之后。 在其随后的撤销通知中，主任承认申请人和C- LLC拥有单独的FEIN、经营地点、管理层和所有权。主任认定申请人和C- LLC并非作为母公司、子公司或关联公司相互关联。但基于两份申请之间的相似性——两份申请均为该受益人在同一最终客户处从事实质相同的工作而提交——主任得出结论，就8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)的多重申请禁令而言，申请人和C- LLC仍然“相关”。 在上诉中，申请人主张相关法规文本——“相关实体（例如关联公司、子公司或母公司）”——仅指通过公司所有权和控制权相关联的实体。申请人不同意主任将8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)解释为也包括以其他方式相关联的公司。

III. ANALYSIS We conclude that the Director properly revoked the approval of the petition because the Petitioner is a “related” entity to C- LLC for purposes of the multiple filing bar at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). We disagree with the Petitioner’s interpretation of the multiple filing bar as applying only to entities that are related through corporate ownership and control. We begin our analysis with the pertinent text of the regulation, including the parenthetical that follows the key terms: “…related entities (such as a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate).” 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). The Petitioner correctly observes that the parenthetical list informs what “related entities” may be subject to the multiple filing bar. But the parenthetical opens with the non-exhaustive phrase “such as”; it does not circumscribe a closed set of relevant relationships. 5 The Petitioner’s proposed reading of the text would frustrate the regulation’s purpose of promoting fair access to limited H-1B visas. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) (addressing the H-1B lottery’s “fair and orderly allocation of numbers”); Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1B Temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt from the Annual Numerical Limitation, 73 Fed. Reg. 15389-95, 15391-93 (Mar. 24, 2008) (discussing the practice of petitioners who exploit the system by attempting to increase their chances of being selected for cap numbers). We decline to adopt a construction that employers could so easily circumvent through corporate law stratagems. Instead, we construe “related entities” to include petitioners, whether or not related through corporate ownership and control, who submit multiple petitions for the same beneficiary for substantially the same job. Whether two jobs are “substantially the same” is an issue of fact that we

III. 分析 我们认定，局长适当撤销了该申请的批准，因为就8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)项下禁止多重提交的规定而言，申请人是C- LLC的“关联”实体。我们不同意申请人将禁止多重提交的规定解释为仅适用于通过公司所有权和控制权而关联的实体。我们从该法规的相关文本开始分析，包括紧随关键术语之后的括号说明：“……关联实体（例如母公司、子公司或关联公司）。”8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)。申请人正确地指出，括号中的列举说明了哪些“关联实体”可能受禁止多重提交规定的约束。但该括号说明以非穷尽性短语“例如”开头；它并未限定相关关系的封闭集合。5 申请人对文本提出的解读将妨碍该法规促进公平获取有限H-1B签证的目的。见8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B)（涉及H-1B抽签的“公平有序分配名额”）；Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1B Temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt from the Annual Numerical Limitation, 73 Fed. Reg. 15389-95, 15391-93 (Mar. 24, 2008)（讨论申请人通过试图增加被选中获得名额上限的机会而滥用制度的做法）。 我们拒绝采用一种雇主可以通过公司法策略轻易规避的解释。相反，我们将“关联实体”解释为包括为同一受益人、就实质相同的职位提交多份申请的申请人，无论是否通过公司所有权和控制权而关联。两个职位是否“实质相同”是一个事实问题，我们

3

3

Matter of S- Inc. Adopted Decision determine based on the totality of the record. Some factors relevant to relatedness may include familial ties, proximity of locations, leadership structure, employment history, similar work assignments, and substantially similar supporting documentation. The Petitioner cautioned that reading the rule to include petitioners, whether or not related through corporate ownership and control, could ensnare companies that can be found “related” for any number of “unspecified reasons.” The Petitioner’s concerns are misplaced. We are not concerned with petitioning employers who have any quantum of a relationship. Two unwitting companies would not likely have the requisite similitude to trigger the bar. But the more similarities in the records, the more likely the companies were seeking to undermine the purpose of the random lottery process. Here, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner and C- LLC are “related entities” for the issue at hand. While the entities appear to stand at arm’s length under corporate law, the Director astutely identified similarities that properly triggered the rule against multiple filings, including the Beneficiary’s assignment to the same end-client through the same mid-vendors. The Director also observed that C- LLC’s petition contained a copy of its Subcontractor Agreement with the Petitioner – executed less than one month before the instant H-1B petition was filed. The contract merely confirms what the other facts amply establish: the Petitioner and C- LLC each filed a petition intending to employ the Beneficiary in substantially the same job (i.e., performing substantially similar duties for the same end-client). Having determined that the Petitioner and C- LLC are related entities under the rule, we next assess whether the Petitioner has demonstrated “a legitimate business need to file more than one H-1B petition on behalf of the same” beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 6 In determining a petitioner’s “legitimate business need,” we examine the underlying job opportunity made by each petitioner. Each job opportunity must be bona fide, be available to the beneficiary 7 , and be materially distinct. 8 The related petitioners cannot be offering essentially the same job opportunity to the beneficiary.

Matter of S- Inc. 已采纳决定 根据记录的整体情况予以确定。与关联性相关的一些因素可能包括家庭关系、地点邻近性、领导结构、雇佣历史、类似工作任务以及实质相似的佐证文件。申请人警告称，将规则解读为包括申请人，无论是否通过公司所有权和控制权而关联，可能会使公司因任何数量的“未指明原因”而被认定为“关联”。申请人的担忧没有依据。我们不关注具有任何程度关系的申请雇主。两家不知情的公司不太可能具有触发该禁止规定所需的相似性。但记录中的相似之处越多，公司越有可能试图破坏随机抽签程序的目的。 在此，记录表明申请人和C- LLC就本问题而言是“关联实体”。虽然根据公司法，这些实体似乎彼此独立，但局长敏锐地识别出适当触发禁止多重提交规则的相似之处，包括受益人通过相同中间供应商被分配到相同的最终客户。局长还注意到，C- LLC的申请中包含其与申请人签订的《分包商协议》副本——该协议在本H-1B申请提交前不到一个月签署。该合同仅仅确认了其他事实充分证明的内容：申请人和C- LLC各自提交了一份申请，意图以实质相同的职位雇用受益人（即，为相同的最终客户履行实质相似的职责）。 在认定申请人和C- LLC根据该规则属于关联实体后，我们接下来评估申请人是否已证明“有合法商业需要为同一”受益人提交一份以上H-1B申请。8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)。6 在确定申请人的“合法商业需要”时，我们审查每个申请人提供的基础工作机会。每个工作机会必须是真实的、可供受益人获得的7，并且必须具有实质区别。8 关联申请人不能向受益人提供本质上相同的工作机会。

6 We note that a single employer may not file more than one cap-subject petition for the same beneficiary even if there is a legitimate business need. In promulgating 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), USCIS recognized that, on occasion, an employer may extend the same beneficiary two or more job offers for distinct positions and therefore have a legitimate business need to file two or more separate H-1B petitions on behalf of the same alien. The rule, however, precluded that practice if the beneficiary is subject to the cap. USCIS recognized that allowing multiple filings by one employer on behalf of the same beneficiary could create a loophole for employers that seek to exploit the random selection process to the competitive disadvantage of other petitioners. Such employers could file multiple petitions on behalf of the same alien under the guise that the petitions are based on different job offers, when the employment positions are in fact the same or only very slightly different. Instead, USCIS explained that a petitioner could file one initial petition, and then if accepted under the cap, file an amended or new petition for concurrent employment. Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1B Temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt From the Annual Numerical Limitation, 73 Fed. Reg. 15,389-901 (Mar. 24, 2008) (emphasis added). 7 The H-1B program does not permit speculative employment. Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 1998) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. pt. 214). 8 See Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1B Temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt From the Annual Numerical Limitation, 73 Fed. Reg. 15,389-901 (Mar. 24, 2008) (“USCIS recognizes that an employer and one or more related

6 我们注意到，单一雇主不得为同一受益人提交一份以上受名额上限约束的申请，即使存在合法商业需要。在制定8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)时，USCIS认识到，有时雇主可能向同一受益人提供两个或更多不同职位的录用通知，因此有合法商业需要为同一外国人提交两份或更多单独的H-1B申请。然而，如果受益人受名额上限约束，该规则排除了这种做法。USCIS认识到，允许一个雇主为同一受益人提交多份申请可能为寻求利用随机选择程序使其他申请人处于竞争劣势的雇主创造漏洞。此类雇主可以以申请基于不同录用通知为幌子，为同一外国人提交多份申请，而就业职位实际上相同或仅非常轻微不同。相反，USCIS解释称，申请人可以提交一份初始申请，然后如果被名额上限接受，可为并行就业提交修订或新的申请。Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1B Temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt From the Annual Numerical Limitation, 73 Fed. Reg. 15,389-901 (Mar. 24, 2008)（着重号为原文所加）。 7 H-1B项目不允许投机性就业。Petitioning Requirements for the H Nonimmigrant Classification, 63 Fed. Reg. 30,419, 30,419-20 (proposed June 4, 1998)（将编入8 C.F.R. pt. 214）。 8 见Petitions Filed on Behalf of H-1B Temporary Workers Subject to or Exempt From the Annual Numerical Limitation, 73 Fed. Reg. 15,389-901 (Mar. 24, 2008)（“USCIS认识到，一个雇主和一个或多个关联

4

4

Matter of S- Inc. Adopted Decision Here, the positions are not materially distinct. As noted above, the petitions were filed in the same fiscal year for the same Beneficiary to work in the substantially same position for the same end-client through the same two vendors. In its response to the Director’s NOIR and in its appeal brief, the Petitioner only contested the Petitioner’s “relatedness” to C- LLC. The Petitioner has not explained, and therefore has not demonstrated, a “legitimate business need” to file this petition. Finally, C- LLC’s subsequent withdrawal of its duplicate petition for the Beneficiary did not absolve the Petitioner of the multiple filing bar. That bar requires denial or revocation of “all petitions filed on that alien’s behalf by the related entities” in the absence of a legitimate business need. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) (emphasis added); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15).

Matter of S- Inc. 已采纳决定 在此，职位不具有实质区别。如上所述，这些申请在同一财政年度为同一受益人提交，目的是通过相同的两个供应商为相同的最终客户在实质相同的职位上工作。在其对局长NOIR的答复和上诉摘要中，申请人仅对申请人与C- LLC的“关联性”提出异议。申请人未解释，因此未证明，提交本申请的“合法商业需要”。 最后，C- LLC随后撤回其为受益人提交的重复申请并未免除申请人受禁止多重提交规定的约束。在缺乏合法商业需要的情况下，该禁止规定要求拒绝或撤销“关联实体为该外国人提交的所有申请”。8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G)（着重号为原文所加）；另见8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15)。

IV. CONCLUSION The Petitioner and a related entity filed multiple H-1B cap-subject petitions for the Beneficiary and did not demonstrate a legitimate business need to do so. The Director properly revoked the approval of the petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(5). ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Cite as Matter of S- Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-02 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018)

IV. 结论 申请人和一个关联实体为受益人提交了多份受名额上限约束的H-1B申请，且未证明有合法商业需要这样做。局长根据8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(5)适当撤销了该申请的批准。 命令： 上诉被驳回。 引用为Matter of S- Inc., Adopted Decision 2018-02 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018)

entities (such as a parent, subsidiary or affiliate) may extend the same alien two or more job offers for distinct positions and therefore have a legitimate business need to file two or more separate H–1B petitions on behalf of the same alien”).

实体（例如母公司、子公司或关联公司）可能向同一外国人提供两个或更多不同职位的录用通知，因此有合法商业需要为同一外国人提交两份或更多单独的H-1B申请”）。

5

5