USCIS 再发新memo严查H1B多份重复申请者，申请者中签几率将大增
3月29日，美国移民局公布了一份memo，针对一个H1B 受益人递交多份签证申请的问题。
目的
关于本案的判决仅仅只是指导作用，不创造任何法律法律权利和义务。相类似案件可以参照本案的判决结果。
本案申诉人挑战“相关联公司内部禁止多次重复为同一受益人提交H-1B申请。”根据法律法规，“相关联公司”包括申请人所拥有所有权及其所控股的公司，禁止为同一受益人，并利用同一职位提交H-1B（cap-subject）申请。
申请人，软件开发及咨询服务公司，雇佣受益人作为该公司的分析程序开发员，并为其申请H-1B签证。但随后，美国移民局拒绝了公司申请人的申请，因为该公司及其相关公司为同一受益人并利用相同职位为其提交多份H-1B 签证申请。上诉中，申请人提交证据证明移民局错误的拒绝了申请，因为这两家公司并具有关联性。下面，我们就来具体讨论下“相关联公司”的定义及范围。
根据美国移民法规规定，本着公平原则，USCIS通过随机抽签规则选取H-1B签证的获得者，对于其余的申请者，USCIS会将其全部决绝。因此雇主们有时为了增加被随机抽签抽中的几率，则选择利用相同职位不同公司为同一受益人提交H-1B申请。
为了杜绝类似事件的发生，确保公平抽签，如果认定是相同公司或相关联的公司同时为同一位受益人提交H-1B签证，那么，移民局会直接拒绝申请人申请。
法律架构
单独的一家公司，禁止在相同的财政年度内为同一外国籍雇员申请多个H-1B签证…如果移民局认为“相关联”公司（母子公司/分支机构）为同一受益人所提供的职位为虚空的职位，即不满足“合法商业需求”的条件…移民局也许会要求申请人提交补充证明材料其满足了“合法商业需求”的条件，或者直接拒绝/撤销其申请。
背景
移民局发现申请人和C-LLC公司都在同一财政年度内，为同一个受益人并利用相同职位，通过两个相同的供应商，向移民局提交申请H-1B签证。申请人宣称，申请人本身的公司和C-LLC 是不“相关联”的两个公司，因为他们都有不同的公司章程、持股证书，公司运用合同，联邦公司身份识别编号，联邦纳税表等等均不同，因此申请人宣称，他们是不“相关联”的两个公司。同时申请人宣称他们之间的公司地址、管理层和公司的所有者也都不相同。
法院认为移民局正确的拒绝了申请人的申请仅因为申请人同时提交了多份H-1B签证申请，虽然两家公司并不是母子公司或者总公司与分公司的关系。我们认为判断两个公司是否是具有“相关联”性，和其公司的所有权或其控股无关，而是和公司架构，地址，领导架构，雇佣关系的历史情况，相同的工作性质及相关法律文件等等有关系。本案中，根据文件记录，申请人和C-LLC 是“相关联”的公司，因为首先“转包合同（subcontractor agreement ）”是在提交H-1B签证申请前的不足一个月内签署的，其次这份合同仅仅只是确认雇佣受益人在相同的职位上；最后，这份合同中并没有创造新的岗位需求，它并没有满足每个受益人的工作职位需要具有实体的合法商业需求目的（“legitimate business need”）。
Summary of the Policy Memo on H1B Duplicate / Multiple Petitions Filings.
- An employer cannot file more than one H1B petition for the same employee/beneficiary, if the employee petition is subject to H1B cap.
- If USCIS believes that ‘related entities’ (such as parent company, subsidiary or affiliate companies, even with different Federal Employer Identification Numbers), have filed multiple H1B petitions for the same employee/ beneficiary, they will deny or revoke the approval of all H1B cap subject petitions filed by related entities for that employee/ beneficiary.
- USCIS clarifies that they consider companies filing H1B petitions as “related entities”, as long as they all apply for the same job or similar position at the same client. These companies may or may not be related through corporate ownership and control.
- USCIS says that unless there is a legitimate business need to file multiple cap-subject petitions for the same employee or beneficiary, they will deny or revoke the approval of all H-1B cap-subject petitions filed by “related entities” for that beneficiary.
- USCIS also says that a single employer cannot file more than one cap subject H1B petitions for the same employee/ beneficiary for different jobs or positions, even if there is a legitimate business need, as many can exploit the loophole and file multiple petitions.
- In scenarios, where there is a real business need for multiple positions for the same employee/beneficiary, USCIS suggest that the employer file an emended or new petition for concurrent employment after the petition is picked in lottery. single employer may not file more than one cap-subject petition for the same beneficiary even if there is a legitimate business need.
- USCIS has full discretion on deciding the “related entities”, when multiple petitions are filed for the same beneficiary or employee by different companies.
o summarize on what means a duplicate H1B filing, I believe, it is much easier to understand, if we can illustrate in picture. Below are short descriptions and illustrations on what USCIS calls a duplicate filing.
- Multiple H1B Petitions filed by Same Employer is Duplicate Filing : A company or employer cannot file multiple H1Bs Petitions for the same employee or beneficiary. It is illustrated below.
- Multiple H1B Petitions filed by Different Employers Related is Duplicate Filing : Two companies or employers cannot file multiple H1Bs Petitions for the same employee or beneficiary that are related to the same parent company or are subsidiaries.
- Multiple H1B Petitions filed by Different Employers Not related directly, but for Same Job: Two companies or employers cannot file multiple H1Bs Petitions for the same employee or beneficiary that are not directly or indirectly related to each other but are applying for the same job or similar role at the same end client. It is illustrated below.
