7456 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 214 

[CIS No. 2766–24; DHS Docket No. USCIS– 

2023–0005] 

RIN 1615–AC70 

Improving the H–1B Registration 

Selection Process and Program 

Integrity 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) is amending 

its regulations to implement the 

proposed beneficiary centric selection 

process for H–1B registrations, provide 

start date flexibility for certain H–1B 

cap-subject petitions, and implement 

additional integrity measures related to 

H–1B registration. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

4, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles L. Nimick, Chief, Business and 

Foreign Workers Division, Office of 

Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, 5900 

Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, 

MD 20746; telephone (240) 721–3000. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory 

Action 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

C. Summary of Changes From the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Background on H–1B Registration 

C. The Need for Regulatory Action 

D. Final Rule and Implementation 

III. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule 

A. Summary of Public Comments 

B. Statutory and Legal Issues Related to 

Registration and Background 

1. DHS/USCIS Legal Authority Related to 

Registration 

2. Background and Data on the Current 

Registration System 

C. Beneficiary Centric Selection 

1. General Support 

2. General Opposition 

3. Identifying Information and Passport 

Requirement 

4. Implementation and Effective Date 

5. Other Comments on the Beneficiary 

Centric Selection Process 

D. Start Date Flexibility for Certain H–1B 

Cap-Subject Petitions 

E. Registration Related Integrity Measures 

1. Bar on Multiple Registrations Submitted 

by Related Entities 

2. Registrations With False Information or 

That Are Otherwise Invalid 

3. Other Comments and Alternatives to 

Anti-Fraud Measures Related to 

Registration 

F. Other Comments Related to the 

Proposed Registration System 

1. Electronic Registration v. Paper-Based 

Filing 

2. Comments on Fees Related to 

Registration 

3. Other Comments and Alternatives 

Related to Registration 

IV. Severability 

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) 

D. Congressional Review Act 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Table of Abbreviations 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CPI–U—Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers 

DHS—U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

DOL—U.S. Department of Labor 

FR—Federal Register 

FY—Fiscal Year 

HR—Human Resources 

HSA—Homeland Security Act of 2002 

IMMACT 90—Immigration Act of 1990 

INA—Immigration and Nationality Act 

LCA—Labor Condition Application 

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

PRD—Policy Research Division 

Pub. L.—Public Law 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Stat.—U.S. Statutes at Large 

TLC—Temporary Labor Certification 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

USCIS—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

I. Executive Summary 

DHS is amending its regulations 

relating to the H–1B registration 

selection process. This final rule 

implements a beneficiary centric 

selection process for H–1B registrations, 

start date flexibility for certain H–1B 

cap-subject petitions, and integrity 

measures related to H–1B registration. 

These provisions are being codified at 

new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A), 

(h)(8)(iii)(D), (h)(8)(iii)(E), (h)(10)(ii), 

(h)(10)(iii), and (h)(11)(iii)(A). At this 

time, DHS is not finalizing other 

provisions of the ‘‘Modernizing H–1B 

Requirements, Providing Flexibility in 

the F–1 Program, and Program 

Improvements Affecting Other 

Nonimmigrant Workers,’’ Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 23, 2023 (October 23 NPRM). 

A. Purpose and Summary of the 

Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

improve the H–1B registration selection 

process. Through this rule, DHS is 

implementing a beneficiary centric 

selection process for H–1B registrations. 

Instead of selecting by registration, U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS) will select registrations by 

unique beneficiary. Each unique 

beneficiary who has a registration 

submitted on their behalf will be 

entered into the selection process once, 

regardless of how many registrations are 

submitted on their behalf. If a 

beneficiary is selected, each registrant 

that submitted a registration on that 

beneficiary’s behalf will be notified of 

the beneficiary’s selection and will be 

eligible to file a petition on that 

beneficiary’s behalf during the 

applicable petition filing period. See 

new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1) and (4). 

DHS anticipates that changing to a 

beneficiary centric selection process for 

H–1B registrations will reduce the 

potential for gaming the process to 

increase chances for selection and help 

ensure that each beneficiary has the 

same chance of being selected, 

regardless of how many registrations are 

submitted on their behalf. 

DHS will also provide start date 

flexibility for certain H–1B cap-subject 

petitions. DHS is clarifying the 

requirements regarding the requested 

employment start date on H–1B capsubject petitions to permit filing with 

requested start dates that are after 

October 1 of the relevant fiscal year, 

consistent with current USCIS policy, 

by removing the current regulatory text 

at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4). 

Additionally, DHS is implementing 

integrity measures related to the H–1B 

registration process, including requiring 

registrations to include the beneficiary’s 

valid passport information or valid 

travel document information, and 

prohibiting a beneficiary from being 

registered under more than one passport 

or travel document. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4). DHS is also 

codifying USCIS’ ability to deny H–1B 

petitions or revoke an approved H–1B 

petition where: there is a change in the 

beneficiary’s identifying information 

from the identifying information as 

stated in the registration to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7457 

1The Department of State website shows visa 

reciprocity by country. To view the Reciprocity 

Page for a country of nationality, select the country/ 

area of authority from the list of countries on the 

left side menu. On the country’s Reciprocity Page, 

select ‘‘Passports & Other Travel Documents.’’ 

Department of State, U.S. Visa: Reciprocity and 

Civil Documents by Country, https://

travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/VisaReciprocity-and-Civil-Documents-by-Country.html. 

information as stated in the petition; the 

underlying registration contained a false 

attestation or was otherwise invalid; the 

registration fee was invalid; or where 

the H–1B cap-subject petition was not 

based on a valid registration. See new 8 

CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A) and (D). In 

addition, DHS is also further codifying 

USCIS’ authority to deny an H petition 

where the statements on the petition, H– 

1B registration, labor condition 

application (LCA), or temporary labor 

certification (TLC), as applicable, were 

inaccurate, fraudulent, or 

misrepresented a material fact, 

including if the attestations on the H– 

1B registration are determined to be 

false. See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10)(ii)– 

(iii). Finally, DHS is codifying USCIS’ 

ability to revoke an approved H petition 

where the statements on the petition, H– 

1B registration, TLC, or the LCA, as 

applicable, were inaccurate, fraudulent, 

or misrepresented a material fact, 

including if the attestations on the H– 

1B registration are determined to be 

false. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A). 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

improve the H–1B registration selection 

process. For the 10-year period of 

analysis of the final rule, DHS estimates 

the annualized net cost savings of this 

rulemaking will be $2,199,374 

annualized at 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Table 1 provides a more detailed 

summary of the final rule provisions 

and their impacts. 

C. Summary of Changes From the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Following careful consideration of 

public comments received, this final 

rule adopts some of the provisions 

proposed in the October 23 NPRM, with 

some changes as described below. 

Passport or Travel Document 

Requirement 

DHS will make a modification to the 

proposed passport requirement to 

specify that registrations must include 

the beneficiary’s valid passport or valid 

travel document. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii) and (D)(1). As 

proposed in the NPRM, 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii) would have 

required the registration to include the 

beneficiary’s valid passport information 

and would not have provided an 

exception to the passport requirement. 

However, after considering public 

comments expressing concern for 

stateless individuals, refugees, and 

others who are unable to obtain valid 

passports, DHS has decided to modify 

new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii) so 

that the registration must include the 

beneficiary’s valid passport information 

or valid travel document information. 

Requiring the beneficiary’s valid 

passport information or valid travel 

document information at the registration 

stage would align with the current Form 

I–129 which asks for the beneficiary’s 

‘‘passport or travel document.’’ This 

modification to allow for a valid travel 

document is intended to narrowly 

accommodate stateless individuals, 

refugees, and others who are unable to 

obtain valid passports, and is directly in 

response to public comments expressing 

concerns for these populations. The 

travel document must be the travel 

document that the beneficiary, if or 

when abroad, intends to use to enter the 

United States if issued an H–1B visa. 

See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii). 

Therefore, the travel document must be 

valid for the entry of the bearer into the 

United States. An example of a valid 

travel document includes one of the 

travel documents listed in the 

Department of State’s reciprocity 

schedule.1 DHS is also modifying this 

provision by adding ‘‘or when’’ to the 

phrase ‘‘if abroad.’’ This modification is 

intended to clarify that the passport or 

travel document must be the same 

passport or travel document that the 

beneficiary intends to use to enter the 

United States, whether the beneficiary is 

abroad at time of registration or in the 

United States at the time of registration 

and will subsequently depart to obtain 

an H–1B visa and return to the United 

States to request admission as an H–1B 

nonimmigrant. 

Under new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii), each 

beneficiary may only be registered 

under one passport or travel document. 

Under new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2), 

if USCIS determines that registrations 

are submitted by either the same or 

different prospective petitioners for the 

same beneficiary, but using different 

identifying information, USCIS may 

find those registrations invalid and deny 

or revoke the approval of any H–1B 

petition filed based on those 

registrations. Additionally, any H–1B 

petition filed on behalf of a beneficiary 

must contain and be supported by the 

same identifying information provided 

in the selected registration, and 

petitioners must submit evidence of the 

passport or travel document used at the 

time of registration to identify the 

beneficiary under new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1). Such evidence 

may include a copy of the passport or 

travel document, consistent with 

current practice. In its discretion, USCIS 

may find that a change in identifying 

information in some circumstances 

would be permissible. Such 

circumstances could include, but are 

not limited to, a legal name change due 

to marriage, change in gender identity, 

or a change in passport number or 

expiration date due to renewal or 

replacement of a stolen passport, in 

between the time of registration and 

filing the petition. USCIS may deny or 

revoke an H–1B petition that does not 

meet these requirements. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1). 

Multiple Registrations by Related 

Entities 

DHS will not finalize the proposed 

change at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) to 

prohibit related entities from submitting 

multiple registrations for the same 

individual at this time. DHS will 

address and may finalize this proposed 

provision in a subsequent final rule. 

However, the submission of multiple 

registrations for the same individual by 

related entities should not increase the 

chances of selection given the 

finalization of the proposal to have 

USCIS select registrations by unique 

beneficiary. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1) and (4). 

Severability 

DHS is adding new regulatory text on 

severability at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(v)(B) 

and redesignating the severability clause 

at paragraph (h)(8)(v) as new paragraph 

(h)(8)(v)(A). While severability was 

discussed in the NPRM, it was only 

discussed in the preamble and there was 

no proposed regulatory text. 

Other Changes From the NPRM 

DHS is also amending the proposed 

regulatory text at 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4) to state, ‘‘A 

petitioner may file an H–1B cap-subject 

petition on behalf of a registered 

beneficiary only after their properly 

submitted registration for that 

beneficiary has been selected for that 

fiscal year.’’ The only change from the 

NPRM is changing ‘‘a’’ to ‘‘their’’ before 

‘‘properly submitted registration.’’ DHS 

is making this change to eliminate any 

confusion that the petitioner listed on 

the H–1B petition must be the same as, 

or a successor in interest to, the 

prospective petitioner listed on the 

registration that was selected. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2Although several provisions of the INA 

discussed in this NPRM refer exclusively to the 

‘‘Attorney General,’’ such provisions are now to be 

read as referring to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security by operation of the HSA. See 6 U.S.C. 

202(3), 251, 271(b), 542 note, 557; 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a)(1), (g), 1551 note; Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. 

Ct. 954, 959 n.2 (2019). 

3Up to 6,800 visas are set aside from the 65,000 

each fiscal year for the H–1B1 visa program under 

terms of the legislation implementing the U.S.-Chile 

and U.S.-Singapore free trade agreements. See INA 

secs. 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), 214(g)(8), 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1), 1184(g)(8). 

4The 65,000 annual H–1B numerical limitation 

was increased for FYs 1999–2003. See INA sec. 

214(g)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A), as amended by 

section 411 of the ACWIA, Public Law 105–277, 

div. C, tit. IV, 112 Stat. 2681, and the American 

Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 

2000 (AC21), Public Law 106–313, 114 Stat. 1251, 

as amended by the 21st Century Department of 

Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public 

Law 107–273, 116 Stat. 1758 (2002). Subsequent to 

IMMACT 90, Congress also created several 

exemptions from the 65,000 numerical limitation. 

See INA sec. 214(g)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5). 

5See INA sec. 214(g)(5)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5)(C). 

This rule also may refer to the 20,000 exemptions 

under section 214(g)(5)(C) from the H–1B regular 

cap as the ‘‘advanced degree exemption allocation,’’ 

or ‘‘advanced degree exemption numerical 

limitation.’’ 

II. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

The Secretary of Homeland Security’s 

authority for these regulatory 

amendments is found in various 

sections of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (INA or the Act), 8 

U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Pub. L. 

107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et 

seq. General authority for issuing this 

rule is found in section 103(a) of the 

INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes 

the Secretary to administer and enforce 

the immigration and nationality laws 

and establish such regulations as the 

Secretary deems necessary for carrying 

out such authority, as well as section 

102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which 

vests all of the functions of DHS in the 

Secretary and authorizes the Secretary 

to issue regulations.2 Further authority 

for these regulatory amendments is 

found in: 

• Section 101(a)(15) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), which establishes 

classifications for noncitizens who are 

coming temporarily to the United States 

as nonimmigrants, including the H–1B 

classification, see INA sec. 

101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b); 

• Section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which authorizes the 

Secretary to prescribe, by regulation, the 

time and conditions of the admission of 

nonimmigrants; 

• Section 214(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1184(c), which, inter alia, authorizes the 

Secretary to prescribe how an importing 

employer may petition for 

nonimmigrant workers, including 

certain nonimmigrants described at 

sections 101(a)(15)(H), (L), (O), and (P), 

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H), (L), (O), and (P); 

the information that an importing 

employer must provide in the petition; 

and certain fees that are required for 

certain nonimmigrant petitions; 

• Section 214(g) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1184(g), which, inter alia, prescribes the 

H–1B numerical limitations, various 

exceptions to those limitations, and the 

period of authorized admission for H– 

1B nonimmigrants; 

• Section 235(d)(3) of the INA, 8 

U.S.C. 1225(d)(3), which authorizes 

‘‘any immigration officer’’ ‘‘to 

administer oaths and to take and 

consider evidence of or from any person 

touching the privilege of any alien or 

person he believes or suspects to be an 

alien to enter, reenter, transit through, 

or reside in the United States or 

concerning any matter which is material 

and relevant to the enforcement of [the 

INA] and the administration of [DHS]’’; 

• Section 287(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1357(b), which authorizes the taking 

and consideration of evidence 

‘‘concerning any matter which is 

material or relevant to the enforcement 

of the [INA] and the administration of 

[DHS]’’; 

• Section 402 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 

202, which charges the Secretary with 

‘‘[e]stablishing and administering rules 

. . . governing the granting of visas or 

other forms of permission . . . to enter 

the United States’’ and ‘‘[e]stablishing 

national immigration enforcement 

policies and priorities’’; see also HSA 

sec. 428, 6 U.S.C. 236; and 

• Section 451(a)(3) and (b) of the 

HSA, 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3) and (b), 

transferring to USCIS the authority to 

adjudicate petitions for nonimmigrant 

status, establish policies for performing 

that function, and set national 

immigration services policies and 

priorities. 

B. Background on H–1B Registration 

The H–1B nonimmigrant visa program 

allows U.S. employers to temporarily 

employ foreign workers in specialty 

occupations, defined by statute as 

occupations that require the theoretical 

and practical application of a body of 

highly specialized knowledge and a 

bachelor’s or higher degree in the 

specific specialty, or its equivalent. See 

INA secs. 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and 214(i), 

8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and 1184(i). 

Through the Immigration Act of 1990 

(Pub. L. 101–649), Congress set the 

current annual cap for the H–1B visa 

category at 65,000,3 which limited the 

number of beneficiaries who may be 

issued an initial H–1B visa or otherwise 

provided initial H–1B status each fiscal 

year.4 Congress provided an exemption 

from the numerical limits in INA sec. 

214(g)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A), for 

20,000 initial H–1B visas, or grants of 

initial H–1B status, each fiscal year for 

foreign nationals who have earned a 

master’s or higher degree from a U.S. 

institution of higher education 

(‘‘advanced degree exemption’’).5

To manage the annual cap, USCIS 

used a random selection process in 

years of high demand to determine 

which petitions were selected toward 

the projected number of petitions 

needed to reach the annual H–1B 

numerical allocations. In order to better 

manage the selection process, DHS 

created a registration requirement for H– 

1B cap-subject petitions, which was first 

implemented in 2020 for the FY 2021 

cap season. Through issuance of a final 

rule in 2019, ‘‘Registration Requirement 

for Petitioners Seeking To File H–1B 

Petitions on Behalf of Cap-Subject 

Aliens,’’ DHS developed a new way to 

administer the H–1B cap selection 

process to streamline processing and 

provide overall cost savings to 

employers seeking to file H–1B capsubject petitions. See 84 FR 888 (Jan. 31, 

2019). Under this process, prospective 

petitioners (also known as registrants) 

that seek to employ H–1B cap-subject 

workers must complete a registration 

process that requires only basic 

information about the prospective 

petitioner and each requested worker. 

The H–1B selection process is then run 

on properly submitted electronic 

registrations. Only those with valid 

selected registrations are eligible to file 

H–1B cap-subject petitions. 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1). 

C. The Need for Regulatory Action 

DHS has seen an increase in the 

number of beneficiaries with multiple 

registrations submitted on their behalf, 

as well as an increase in the number and 

percentage of registrations submitted for 

beneficiaries with multiple registrations. 

Under current regulations, there is no 

limit on the number of registrations that 

may be submitted on behalf of one 

unique individual by different 

registrants. DHS has a strong interest in 

ensuring that the annual numerical 

allocations are going to petitioners that 

truly intend to employ an H–1B worker, 

rather than prospective petitioners using 

the registration system as a placeholder 

for the possibility that they may want to 

employ an H–1B worker or as a way to 

game the selection process. See 88 FR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7459 

72870, 72897 (Oct. 23, 2023). As a 

result, DHS has determined that 

structurally limiting the ability to game 

the system through beneficiary centric 

selection will promote the purpose of 

fair and orderly administration of the 

annual H–1B numerical allocations. 

D. Final Rule and Implementation 

On October 23, 2023, DHS published 

an NPRM, ‘‘Modernizing H–1B 

Requirements, Providing Flexibility in 

the F–1 Program, and Program 

Improvements Affecting Other 

Nonimmigrant Workers,’’ 88 FR 72870. 

In the October 23 NPRM, DHS stated 

that it may publish one or more final 

rules to codify the proposed provisions 

after carefully considering public 

comments, and that it may do so in time 

for the FY 2025 cap season. DHS 

received 1,315 comments on the NPRM, 

most of which are substantive. Based on 

recent program experience and careful 

review of public comments expressing 

the urgent need to reform the 

registration system and support for the 

proposed beneficiary centric selection 

process, DHS has decided to first 

finalize changes to the H–1B registration 

selection process and other related 

changes discussed below, to urgently 

address the potential for abuse of the H– 

1B registration process, including for 

the upcoming FY2025 cap season. DHS 

continues to consider the suggestions 

made in public comments received on 

the other proposed changes included in 

the October 23 NPRM and plans to issue 

a separate final rule to codify or 

otherwise address those proposed 

changes. 

III. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

A. Summary of Public Comments 

In response to the proposed rule, DHS 

received 1,315 comments during the 60- 

day public comment period. Of these, 

510 comments were related to H–1B 

registration and the related topics that 

DHS is finalizing through this 

rulemaking. Of these, 25 comments 

were duplicate submissions and 

approximately 78 were letters submitted 

through mass mailing campaigns. DHS 

considered all of these comment 

submissions. Commenters included 

individuals (including U.S. workers), 

companies, law firms, a federation of 

labor organizations, professional 

organizations, advocacy groups, 

nonprofit organizations, representatives 

from Congress and local governments, 

universities, and trade and business 

associations. Most commenters 

expressed support for the rule or offered 

suggestions for improvement. Of the 

commenters opposing the rule, many 

commenters expressed opposition to a 

part of or all of the proposed rule. Some 

just expressed general opposition to the 

rule without suggestions for 

improvement. For many of the public 

comments, DHS could not ascertain 

whether the commenter supported or 

opposed the proposed rule. 

DHS has reviewed all of the public 

comments received in response to the 

proposed rule. In this final rule, DHS is 

only responding to public comments 

that are related to H–1B registration and 

the related topics that DHS is finalizing 

through this final rule. DHS’s responses 

are grouped by subject area, with a focus 

on the most common issues and 

suggestions raised by commenters. 

B. Statutory and Legal Issues Related to 

Registration and Background 

1. DHS/USCIS Legal Authority Related 

to Registration 

Comment: While providing feedback 

on the proposed changes to the H–1B 

selection process, a couple of 

commenters wrote that centering the 

selection process around beneficiaries is 

a proper exercise of DHS’s authority 

under the INA. Citing INA sec. 214(g)(3) 

and Walker Macy LLC v. USCIS, 243 F. 

Supp. 3d 1156 (D. Or. 2017), the 

commenters wrote that the statutory 

ambiguity around how to allocate H–1B 

numbers when the Department receives 

hundreds of thousands of petitions or 

registrations requires DHS to establish 

‘‘a reasonable H–1B allocation process 

for such situations.’’ Another 

commenter generally stated that the 

proposed rule is within the legal 

framework established by Congress. 

Response: DHS agrees with the 

commenters that it has the statutory 

authority to implement the beneficiary 

centric registration selection process, 

consistent with its authority under 

section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, 

and INA secs. 103(a), 214(a) and 214(c), 

8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 1184(a) and 1184(c). 

These are the same authorities that DHS 

relied upon to create the registration 

requirement. See 84 FR 888, 894 (Jan. 

31, 2019); see also Liu v. Mayorkas, 588 

F.Supp.3d 43, 55 (D.D.C. 2022) (finding 

that the registration requirement does 

not violate the INA and is not ultra 

vires). DHS also agrees that the 

beneficiary centric registration selection 

process is a reasonable process for 

administering the H–1B numerical 

allocations because it better ensures an 

equal chance of selection for each 

unique beneficiary registered for the H– 

1B cap by a prospective petitioner and 

systematically reduces the potential for 

prospective petitioners to have a higher 

chance of selection by abusing the 

system and working with others to 

submit multiple registrations for the 

same beneficiary. 

Comment: An individual commenter 

stated that it is unclear whether DHS 

has the statutory authority to implement 

the proposed beneficiary centric 

selection process. The commenter 

remarked that the system would 

potentially contradict INA sec. 

214(g)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(3), which 

states that H–1B visas shall be issued 

‘‘in the order in which petitions are 

filed.’’ The commenter asserted that the 

random selection system was justifiable 

because it was used to determine which 

petitions were considered to be filed 

earlier than others, but that the 

proposed system would not be 

consistent with this framework. The 

commenter contended that the proposed 

system seems to contradict INA sec. 

214(g)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(3), because 

the commenter believes that the law 

requires that multiple petitions 

submitted on behalf of a beneficiary 

would give them multiple chances to 

have their petition considered as one of 

the 65,000 earliest filed. 

Response: DHS disagrees with the 

suggestion that it lacks statutory 

authority to implement the beneficiary 

centric registration selection process or 

that this process would be inconsistent 

with INA sec. 214(g)(3), 8 U.S.C. 

1184(g)(3), which states that initial H– 

1B visas or grants of status shall be 

issued in the order in which petitions 

are filed. ‘‘A registration is not a 

petition.’’ Liu v. Mayorkas, 588 

F.Supp.3d 43, 54 (D.D.C. 2022). 

Registration is merely ‘‘an antecedent 

procedural step to be eligible to file an 

H–1B cap[-subject] petition.’’ Id. at 55. 

Furthermore, INA sec. 214(g)(3), 8 

U.S.C. 1184(g)(3), is silent with regard to 

how to handle simultaneous 

submissions of H–1B cap-subject 

petitions. See Walker Macy LLC v. 

USCIS, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1156, 1167 (D. 

Or. 2017). Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, the INA does not require 

USCIS to provide multiple chances for 

selection for beneficiaries of multiple 

H–1B cap-subject petitions. Rather, 

consistent with INA sec. 214(g)(7), 8 

U.S.C. 1184(g)(7) (‘‘Where multiple 

petitions are approved for 1 alien, that 

alien shall be counted only once’’), if 

multiple employers properly file H–1B 

cap-subject petitions for a beneficiary 

selected during the beneficiary centric 

registration selection process, and if 

multiple H–1B cap-subject petitions are 

approved for that beneficiary, the 

beneficiary will only be counted once 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

6See Liu v. Mayorkas, 588 F.Supp.3d 43, 55 

(D.D.C. 2022) (‘‘Consider also that if an alien could 

have only one employer file a registration on his 

behalf, that would conflict with § 1184(g)(7). Such 

a rule would effectively bar any scenario where an 

alien could have more than one petition approved 

for him. Section 1184(g)(7) would become 

meaningless. That is why the Registration Rule 

allows for multiple registrations. And it adheres to 

the INA, because ‘one alien, one registration’ is not 

in the statutory language.’’). 

7The U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia found that the current registration 

process is not inconsistent with the INA and is 

therefore not ultra vires. See Liu v. Mayorkas, 588 

F.Supp.3d 43, 55 (D.D.C. 2022) (‘‘The Rule does not 

allow more than 65,000 visas (85,000 with the 

exempt visas included), so it complies with sec. 

1184(g)(1). The Applicants do not argue that the 

Rule allows USCIS to issue visas in any order other 

than the order in which it receives petitions. Nor 

could they, because all the Registration Rule does 

is require prospective employers to file a 

registration as a first step in the process. A 

registration is not a petition. The Registration Rule 

is simply an antecedent procedural step to be 

eligible to file an H–1B cap petition. So the Rule 

does not violate sec. 1184(g)(3). And the Rule does 

not violate sec. 1184(g)(7) because it makes no 

provision for USCIS to count an alien more than 

once against the H–1B cap. . . Because the INA is 

clear, the Court need not move to Chevron step two. 

And because the Registration Rule does not violate 

the INA, it is not ultra vires.’’) (citations omitted). 

8Anderson, Stuart, ‘‘Immigration Service Likely 

to Change H–1B Visa Lottery,’’ Forbes (May 1, 

2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/ 

stuartanderson/2023/05/01/immigration-servicelikely-to-change-h-1b-visa-lottery/ 

?sh=5253047d2868. 

9USCIS, ‘‘H–1B Electronic Registration Process,’’ 

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/ 

temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-andfashion-models/h-1b-electronic-registration-process 

(last updated July 31, 2023). 

10 Id. 11 Id. 

toward the numerical allocations.6 DHS, 

therefore, believes that the beneficiary 

centric registration selection process, 

similar to the registration-based 

selection process, is not inconsistent 

with INA sec. 214(g)(3), 8 U.S.C. 

1184(g)(3), and is a permissible exercise 

of DHS’s authority under section 102 of 

the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, and INA secs. 

103(a), 214(a) and 214(c), 8 U.S.C. 

1103(a), 1184(a) and 1184(c). 

Comment: A comment from multiple 

members of Congress stated that, while 

it is legal for beneficiaries to have 

multiple employers submit registrations 

on their behalf, the current registration 

system is ‘‘unfair to [beneficiaries] and 

scrupulous employers, detrimental to 

the H–1B system, and inconsistent with 

statutory intent, as individuals with 

multiple selections may be counted as 

multiple cap slots.’’ These commenters 

strongly recommended that DHS 

implement the beneficiary centric 

system in time for the FY 2025 

registration period. 

Response: DHS agrees that the 

beneficiary centric selection approach 

will improve the fairness and integrity 

of the H–1B registration process and 

reduce the possibility for abuse. 

However, DHS disagrees with the 

commenters’ suggestion that the current 

registration system is inconsistent with 

the statute or congressional intent.7 As 

stated in previous responses above, DHS 

has the statutory authority to implement 

the beneficiary centric registration 

selection process, consistent with its 

authority under section 112 of the HSA, 

6 U.S.C. 112, and INA secs. 103(a), 

214(a) and 214(c), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), 

1184(a) and 1184(c). DHS also agrees 

that implementing these improvements 

as soon as possible, and in time for the 

FY 2025 cap season, will be 

advantageous to the regulated public 

and DHS. 

2. Background and Data on the Current 

Registration System 

Comment: While citing research 

published in Forbes on May 1, 2023,8 a 

couple of commenters offered general 

background on selection in the H–1B 

registration process, stating that the 

chances of selection have decreased 

from FY 2021 to FY 2024. A commenter 

expressed support for the rule, while 

inaccurately stating that there were 

‘‘7.81 million registrations received 

during the 2024 fiscal year.’’ Another 

commenter conveyed support for the 

proposed rule by referencing the 

unprecedented number of registrations 

received during FY 2024. While 

referencing the increase in registrations 

for beneficiaries with multiple 

registrations, a joint submission 

expressed a vision of the H–1B 

registration system in which employers 

with genuine job opportunities are not 

disadvantaged by those who manipulate 

the registration process. Citing the 

increase in the number of 

‘‘applications’’ within the past 3 years, 

a commenter stated that this increase 

was because of businesses sponsoring 

multiple applications for the same 

person. 

Response: In FY 2024, there were 

many more registrations than in 

previous years. As USCIS stated on its 

‘‘H–1B Electronic Registration Process’’ 

website, there were 780,884 total 

registrations received during the 

registration period for the FY 2024 H– 

1B cap.9 This was a significant increase 

over prior years. USCIS also stated on 

its website that, generally, there was an 

increase in the number of registrations 

submitted, the number of registrations 

submitted on behalf of beneficiaries 

with multiple registrations, and the 

number of registrations submitted on 

behalf of unique beneficiaries with only 

one registration.10 USCIS further noted 

on its website that the large number of 

eligible registrations for beneficiaries 

with multiple eligible registrations had 

raised serious concerns that some may 

have tried to gain an unfair advantage 

by working together to submit multiple 

registrations on behalf of the same 

beneficiary.11 As DHS noted in the 

proposed rule, beneficiaries who have 

multiple registrations submitted on their 

behalf have a significantly higher 

chance of selection, while an 

individual’s chance of selection with a 

single registration is greatly reduced, as 

the number of beneficiaries with 

multiple registrations increases under 

the current system, increasing the 

number of registrations overall. Through 

this rule, DHS intends to remedy this 

situation by implementing the 

beneficiary centric selection process, 

where each beneficiary is expected to 

have the same chance of selection, 

regardless of the number of registrations 

submitted on their behalf. 

Comment: Referencing Tables 3 and 4 

of the NPRM, a commenter remarked 

that this data was evidence of an 

increasing trend that undermined the 

registration system’s fairness and 

efficiency. The commenter added that 

attention and action are needed to 

maintain the integrity of the registration 

system. Another commenter said that 

the information presented in Tables 2, 3, 

and 4 of the NPRM shows instances 

where individuals exploit the current 

registration system to enhance their 

chances of selection, thus diminishing 

the chance of selection for those with 

only one registration. 

Response: DHS agrees that tables 2, 3, 

and 4 in the NPRM show a concerning 

trend. As noted in the proposed rule, 

the data show that multiple registrations 

on behalf of the same individual are 

increasing, and this trend negatively 

affects the integrity of the registration 

system and selection process. 

C. Beneficiary Centric Selection 

1. General Support 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed broad support for the changes 

to the registration system and 

implementation of a beneficiary centric 

selection process without providing 

additional rationale. Several other 

commenters expressed support for a 

system where individuals would only 

have one chance in the lottery and 

noted that the proposed measures 

would reduce multiple ‘‘entries’’ 

without providing additional rationale. 

Response: The commenters’ reference 

to multiple ‘‘entries’’ is not entirely 

clear. DHS notes, however, that this rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7461 

does not prohibit multiple registrations 

for the same beneficiary and will not 

necessarily reduce the number of 

registrations for the same beneficiary. 

The rule is intended to reduce the 

incentives for submitting multiple nonmeritorious registrations on behalf of 

the same beneficiary. Changing how 

USCIS conducts the selection process to 

select by unique beneficiaries instead of 

registrations will significantly reduce or 

eliminate the advantage of submitting 

multiple registrations for the same 

beneficiary solely to increase the 

chances of selection and should give all 

beneficiaries an equal chance at 

selection. 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

beneficiary centric selection process on 

the basis that the revisions are needed 

or overdue, and some said that making 

the selection process fair should be a 

high priority. 

Response: DHS agrees that revisions 

to the current selection process are 

needed to better ensure that the 

registration system continues to serve its 

purpose of efficiently and fairly 

administering the annual H–1B 

numerical allocations. DHS believes that 

a beneficiary centric selection process 

will likely provide each beneficiary 

with the same chance for selection 

without regard to the number of 

registrations submitted for each 

beneficiary and will structurally limit 

the potential for bad actors to game the 

system because working with others to 

submit multiple registrations for the 

same beneficiary will not increase their 

chance of selection under the 

beneficiary centric selection process. 

The final rule also provides that if 

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–1B petition filed based on 

those registrations. DHS believes that 

these changes are likely to provide an 

equal chance of selection for each 

beneficiary and significantly limit the 

potential for abuse of the registration 

process. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

beneficiary centric selection process on 

the basis that it would have positive 

impacts on the H–1B program overall, 

including increasing fairness. These 

commenters reason that: 

• The proposed rule would enhance 

the fairness and integrity of the 

selection process overall and one 

individual should have one entry to the 

selection process, as it is unfair for 

individuals to have more than one 

chance; 

• Providing all prospective 

beneficiaries with an equal opportunity 

in the selection system would promote 

social justice and ethical behaviors; 

• Concerns with the current 

uncertainties in the selection process 

would be alleviated with the changes, 

which would enhance transparency and 

predictability in the selection process 

and help achieve the H–1B program’s 

original objectives; 

• The current process harms workers, 

such as graduates who submit a single 

entry due to dedication to their 

prospective employer; and 

• Questions on the validity and 

efficiency of the U.S. immigration 

system were addressed and that the 

changes would help restore trust in the 

system. 

Response: DHS agrees with these 

commenters that the beneficiary centric 

selection process will likely increase 

fairness in the selection process, as well 

as enhance the integrity of the selection 

process overall. DHS anticipates that 

this change will also enhance 

transparency and predictability in the 

selection process by structurally 

limiting the potential for bad actors to 

game the system. As noted in the 

NPRM, DHS is aware that, under the 

registration-based selection process, an 

individual’s chance of selection with a 

single registration is lower compared to 

beneficiaries who have multiple 

registrations submitted on their behalf 

and is optimistic that the new 

beneficiary centric selection system will 

increase fairness and help restore trust 

in the system. 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported the proposed registration 

selection process because it would 

reduce abuse in the system, reasoning 

that: 

• The current system is abused by 

some companies and individuals, who 

submit multiple registrations on 

potential beneficiaries’ behalf, unfairly 

strengthening their own chances, and 

reducing the chances of other applicants 

being selected; 

• The revised process would curb 

fraud, misuse, and manipulation in the 

registration system, with some 

commenters additionally providing 

anecdotal accounts of fraud and abuse 

under the current system; and 

• Changes to the current system are 

needed to address loopholes that allow 

fraudulent submissions. 

Response: DHS agrees that changes to 

the current system are needed to 

address misuse of the system and better 

ensure that the registration system 

continues to serve its purpose of 

efficiently and fairly administering the 

annual H–1B numerical allocations. 

DHS agrees that some registrants have 

attempted to abuse the registration 

process to improve the chance of 

selection for some beneficiaries while 

reducing the chances of selection of 

other potential beneficiaries. The 

beneficiary centric selection process in 

this final rule is designed to provide 

each beneficiary with the same chance 

for selection without regard to the 

number of registrations submitted for 

each beneficiary and will structurally 

limit the potential for bad actors to game 

the system because working with others 

to submit multiple registrations for the 

same beneficiary will not increase their 

chance of selection under the 

beneficiary centric selection process. 

Under the beneficiary centric process, 

USCIS will select by each unique 

beneficiary such that each beneficiary 

should have the same chance for 

selection, whether they are the 

beneficiary of one registration or one 

hundred registrations. DHS has a strong 

interest in ensuring that the annual 

numerical allocations are going to 

petitioners that truly intend to employ 

H–1B workers and anticipates that the 

revised selection process will reduce 

fraud, misuse, and manipulation in the 

registration system. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed support for the changes based 

on programmatic improvements with 

respect to reducing administrative 

burdens and the number of times the 

lottery must be run. These commenters 

remarked that the proposed changes 

would enhance efficiency and reduce 

the probability of needing to perform 

additional selection rounds. 

Commenters noted that duplicate 

registrations under the current selection 

method wasted limited cap H–1B 

numbers and created a time and cost 

burden for USCIS since the agency had 

to run the lottery multiple times. A few 

commenters also noted that running the 

lottery multiple times could negatively 

affect potential beneficiaries who cannot 

stay in the United States to wait for 

additional lottery rounds to be run. 

A couple of commenters discussed 

how losses for U.S. employers under the 

current system result in additional 

costs, administrative burdens, and 

instability. Some commenters noted that 

the proposed rule would reduce the 

administrative burden for companies 

aiming to register potential beneficiaries 

under the current registration system, 

streamlining the process for both 

registrants and government agencies. 

Additionally, a couple of commenters 

wrote that the proposed selection 

process would reduce administrative 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12See INA section 214(n), 8 U.S.C. 1184(n). 

and financial burdens on U.S. 

companies and employers. 

Response: DHS appreciates 

commenters for their feedback 

supporting the change to a beneficiary 

centric selection process and their 

assertions that this change will reduce 

administrative burdens for companies 

and enhance efficiency. Additionally, 

DHS appreciates the comments that 

some companies face hiring instability 

under the current registration-based 

selection process because the chance of 

selection is low; and, they may have 

been required to wait through multiple 

selection rounds to find out if their 

registration for a beneficiary had been 

selected. With respect to agency 

administrative burdens, even under the 

beneficiary centric selection process, it 

is possible that USCIS may be required 

to conduct more than one round of 

selections depending on how many 

petitions are filed based on valid 

registration selections following the 

initial or subsequent selection round. 

Therefore, DHS cannot forecast with 

certainty a reduction in administrative 

burdens resulting from fewer selection 

rounds. However, the beneficiary 

centric selection process may reduce the 

likelihood that USCIS will need to run 

the selection process more than once in 

a fiscal year and may achieve the 

multiple benefits discussed by the 

commenters. DHS also acknowledges 

the comments that running multiple 

selection rounds can negatively affect 

beneficiaries who are already in the 

United States and may not be able to 

stay through multiple selection rounds, 

and notes that the beneficiary centric 

registration process may help potential 

beneficiaries in this manner as well. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

discussed the negative impact of the 

current selection process on fairness, 

stating that prospective beneficiaries 

with one registration or those who 

comply with H–1B policies struggle to 

be selected for an H–1B number due to 

ongoing abuse and decreasing selection 

rates. Some commenters noted that 

those who comply with registration 

requirements are unfairly disadvantaged 

or effectively penalized for their 

decision not to engage in fraud, which 

results in inverse selection bias and 

moral hazard and causes stress for 

beneficiaries. Many commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

beneficiary centric selection and said 

that the proposed selection process 

would promote equity and fairness 

among prospective H–1B beneficiaries, 

and provide prospective beneficiaries 

with an equal opportunity for selection. 

Several commenters stated that the 

proposed process would improve 

opportunities for selection for 

individuals with one offer or 

registration and discourage 

‘‘unnecessary competition’’ among 

beneficiaries. 

Response: DHS agrees with these 

commenters that the chances of 

selection in the current registrationbased cap selection process are lower 

for beneficiaries with only one job offer 

and that this may be due, in part, to 

some registrants trying to game the 

system by working with others to 

submit multiple registrations for a single 

beneficiary. DHS agrees with these 

commenters that the new beneficiary 

centric selection process will increase 

fairness for registrants and beneficiaries 

and anticipates that changing the 

selection process will discourage 

organizations and beneficiaries from 

trying to game the system. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

ethical and integrity-driven individuals 

are naturally disinclined to engage in 

fraudulent activities. The commenter 

indicated that the beneficiary centric 

selection process would, therefore, not 

only combat fraud but also foster an 

environment that prioritizes ethics and 

honesty. The commenter stated that 

preventing H–1B program abuse will 

safeguard the country’s values and 

bolster the nation’s economic and 

national security, among other benefits. 

Response: DHS appreciates the 

commenter’s feedback on the various 

benefits of the beneficiary centric 

selection process and agrees that the 

new beneficiary centric selection 

process will increase fairness for all 

prospective beneficiaries. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

registration selection process on the 

basis of improved flexibility, greater 

autonomy, and more agency for 

beneficiaries. A few commenters wrote 

that the proposed process would 

empower candidates to select the 

employer for whom they ultimately 

work. Additionally, a commenter said 

that beneficiary centric selection would 

provide beneficiaries with better 

bargaining power, ensuring that 

employers do not undercut wages. 

Another commenter wrote that the 

proposed rule would allow beneficiaries 

to negotiate with companies for higher 

salaries upon selection, which the 

commenter said would create an 

‘‘imbalance in salaries.’’ 

Response: DHS generally agrees with 

these commenters. As noted in the 

NPRM, the new beneficiary centric 

selection process may benefit 

beneficiaries by giving them greater 

autonomy to choose the employer for 

whom they ultimately work without 

decreasing their chances of selection. 88 

FR 72870, 72899 (Oct. 23, 2023). If 

multiple unrelated companies submit 

registrations for a beneficiary and the 

beneficiary is selected, then the 

beneficiary could have flexibility to 

determine which company or 

companies could submit an H–1B 

petition for the beneficiary, because all 

of the companies that submitted a 

registration for that unique beneficiary 

would be notified that their registration 

was selected and they are eligible to file 

a petition on behalf of that beneficiary. 

88 FR 72870, 72899 (Oct. 23, 2023). 

While DHS cannot predict whether or 

how the beneficiary centric system 

would affect salaries, H–1B beneficiaries 

already possess and may exercise 

autonomy to change to another H–1B 

employer offering a higher salary or 

preferred work conditions.12

Comment: Commenters discussed 

benefits and impacts on specific 

populations of prospective beneficiaries. 

For example, some commenters wrote 

that the proposed changes would ensure 

fairer opportunities for international 

students, particularly those on F–1 

student visas. In addition, a commenter 

said that the proposed rule would make 

the process fairer for highly skilled 

workers, as the current system favors 

low-skilled workers who ‘‘take the 

majority of the quota,’’ through multiple 

registrations. 

Response: DHS’s goal is to set a level 

playing field for all potential 

beneficiaries so that all beneficiaries 

may have a fair chance of selection 

through the revised beneficiary centric 

selection process. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

selection process, opining that it would 

benefit U.S. employers and companies. 

Multiple commenters, including a 

company, discussed challenges for 

employers to meet workforce needs 

under the current registration selection 

system, including: the inability to retain 

talent due to falling selection rates, the 

loss of talent as a result of prospective 

employees leaving their U.S. employers 

or the United States, hesitation among 

employers to hire foreign workers, 

disadvantages for small to medium 

enterprises that do not have the means 

to outsource their workforce, and 

hampering company efforts to expand, 

such as the inability to expand 

semiconductor design and 

manufacturing efforts. 

Many commenters remarked on how 

the proposed selection process would 

benefit employers or remediate the 

above challenges, stating that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7463 

revisions would: generally align with or 

protect the interests of U.S. companies; 

allow U.S. companies to attract, 

increase, or retain foreign talent and a 

skilled workforce; promise a targeted or 

more precise allocation of visas to cater 

to the needs of U.S. employers; boost 

the confidence of U.S. employers to hire 

international workers; decrease 

disruption in the hiring and talent 

management process; increase the 

productivity and competitiveness of 

U.S. businesses; and benefit 

underserved businesses. 

Response: DHS appreciates the 

feedback that the beneficiary centric 

selection process will improve 

employers’ ability to attract and retain 

foreign talent and lessen their 

administrative burden in managing a 

competitive workforce. DHS anticipates 

that this approach will create a more 

level playing field so that all 

beneficiaries may have a fair chance of 

selection. While DHS cannot gauge all 

of the impacts of this selection process, 

DHS appreciates the commenters’ 

assessments that it may improve 

employee retention, increase 

productivity, and boost confidence in 

hiring international workers. 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

endorsed the beneficiary centric 

selection process based on potential 

outcomes for the U.S. economy overall. 

Many of these commenters expressed 

concern with the current selection 

process and its associated outcomes on 

the U.S. economy and workforce, 

including: preventing the United States 

from retaining skilled foreign workers; 

the loss of global competitiveness, 

particularly in the technology sector; 

stifled innovation and growth; job 

market distortion and unpredictable 

workforce availability, as a result of 

individuals accepting more offers than 

they can take; discrimination against 

industries that restrict the number of 

offers one can accept; harms to the 

education industry and universities 

through the loss of international 

students; and increased reliance on 

outsourcing, which negatively impacts 

tax revenue and the local job market. 

Commenters stated that the proposed 

selection process would positively 

impact the U.S. economy by: 

encouraging innovation and economic 

growth and fostering technological 

advancements, research breakthroughs, 

and entrepreneurship, which stimulate 

economic growth and job opportunities; 

bolstering the United States’ 

competitive position in the global 

economy; benefitting U.S. and 

international workers who contribute to 

the U.S. economy; minimizing labor 

shortages; ensuring that the United 

States can attract highly skilled foreign 

professionals; ensuring a more stable 

and reliable immigration system that 

benefits the strength and resilience of 

the U.S. economy; and promoting 

diversity in the U.S. workforce. 

Multiple commenters endorsed the 

proposed selection process on the basis 

that it would give prospective 

beneficiaries the opportunity to remain 

in the United States and contribute to 

the U.S. economy, stating that: 

• Difficulties with H–1B selection 

have caused prospective workers to 

leave the United States, with some 

commenters providing anecdotal 

remarks to support this view; 

• By rewarding ‘‘volume over 

veracity,’’ the current system diminishes 

the ability of prospective beneficiaries 

to apply their skills in the U.S. job 

market; and 

• Current abuse within the selection 

system deters companies from 

extending offers to international 

workers. 

In light of the above concerns, several 

commenters said that the proposed 

revisions to the selection process would 

instead encourage international talent to 

work in the United States and benefit 

foreign professionals who already 

contribute—or aspire to contribute—to 

the U.S. economy. 

Response: DHS appreciates these 

commenters’ assessments that the new 

selection process will positively impact 

the U.S. economy and that the U.S. 

economy may benefit from foreign talent 

through a revised H–1B selection 

process. DHS anticipates that the 

beneficiary centric selection process 

will benefit U.S. companies and 

prospective beneficiaries who will 

contribute to the U.S. economy by 

creating a fairer selection process. 

2. General Opposition 

Comment: An individual commenter 

opposed the beneficiary centric process 

on the grounds that it will decrease the 

chances of highly talented or highly 

qualified beneficiaries to be selected. 

The commenter explained that an 

extraordinary candidate should have a 

higher chance of selection compared to 

a less qualified candidate, and that it is 

unfair to give these different candidates 

the same chance of selection. The 

commenter stated that USCIS should act 

against fraudulent companies rather 

than decrease the chance of selection for 

highly talented or qualified individuals 

with multiple job offers. 

Response: Under the current 

registration-based selection process, 

beneficiaries with multiple legitimate 

job offers and registrations are 

potentially being crowded out by 

multiple registrations for beneficiaries 

with frivolous job offers. Therefore, an 

individual’s chance of selection based 

on one or two registrations is much less 

than the chance of selection based on, 

for example, 80 plus registrations as was 

seen in FY 2023. The new beneficiary 

centric selection process is designed to 

provide all individuals, even those with 

legitimate multiple registrations, with 

an equal chance of selection as opposed 

to the diminished chances under the 

current process. DHS recognizes that the 

change to the beneficiary centric 

selection process could potentially 

decrease the chance of selection for 

some beneficiaries with multiple job 

offers. It, however, is not clear from the 

comment whether or how the 

population of beneficiaries with 

multiple job offers overlaps with the 

population of ‘‘extraordinary 

candidates,’’ as the selection process 

does not take into account the 

beneficiary’s qualifications. Even if 

there is such an overlap, DHS believes 

the benefits of leveling the playing field 

for all beneficiaries outweigh the 

possible negative consequences to some 

individuals. Moreover, extraordinary or 

highly qualified candidates may have 

options outside of cap-subject H–1B 

employment and could obtain 

employment in the United States 

through alternate paths, such as 

employment with a cap-exempt H–1B 

petitioner or an O–1 nonimmigrant visa. 

Additionally, DHS appreciates other 

commenters’ feedback that certain 

industries or companies have ethics 

rules that prevent individuals from 

accepting job offers from more than one 

company at a time, and by extension, 

prevent them from having multiple H– 

1B registrations submitted on their 

behalf. As these commenters have 

indicated, the number of registrations an 

individual has is not always an accurate 

proxy of their talent or desirability as a 

candidate for employment. 

Finally, because the H–1B registration 

process is merely an antecedent 

procedural step before the H–1B 

petition may be properly filed and 

adjudicated, and is not itself an 

adjudication, DHS does not believe that 

it could implement a selection process 

based on a relative comparison of 

various beneficiaries’ qualifications and 

still retain the original aim for creating 

the registration process in the first 

place—an efficient process based on 

minimum information necessary to 

administer the annual statutory H–1B 

numerical allocations. 

Comment: A commenter stated it 

opposes the rule because, as an 

organization, it relies on students who 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7464 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

are not selected in the H–1B lottery for 

its profits. 

Response: DHS disagrees with this 

comment. The purpose of the 

registration system is to provide for the 

fair and orderly administration of the 

annual H–1B numerical allocations, not 

to provide profits for certain companies. 

DHS strongly supports fairness in the 

selection process and believes that the 

beneficiary centric selection process in 

this final rule will provide each 

beneficiary with the same chance for 

selection. 

3. Identifying Information and Passport 

Requirement 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the use of passport numbers as 

identifying information would help 

mitigate fraud and promote fairness in 

the registration system by providing 

everyone with an equal chance in the 

beneficiary centric selection process. In 

addition to promoting fairness, a 

commenter remarked that the use of a 

unique passport number adds an 

additional layer of transparency and 

traceability to the selection process, 

which minimizes the potential for 

manipulation or bias. A commenter 

expressed support for the requirement, 

reasoning that citizens from countries 

where visas are mandatory to enter the 

United States already submit passport 

information. 

Response: DHS agrees with these 

commenters that the requirement of a 

passport number at the time of 

registration under the beneficiary 

centric selection process will help 

mitigate fraud and abuse of the 

registration selection process. In 

response to other public comments 

discussed in this preamble, DHS has 

decided to modify this proposed 

requirement in this final rule by 

expanding the types of acceptable 

documents so that the registration must 

include either the beneficiary’s valid 

passport information or valid travel 

document information. DHS is making 

this modification in order to narrowly 

accommodate stateless individuals, 

refugees, and other individuals who are 

unable to obtain valid passports. DHS 

believes that this modified requirement 

of a passport or travel document will 

still help to mitigate fraud by allowing 

USCIS to accurately identify each 

unique beneficiary, which is integral to 

the integrity of the beneficiary centric 

selection process and the goal of 

creating a fairer registration system. 

Comment: Some commenters stated 

that the proposed rule does not indicate 

how USCIS will review petitions that 

have explainable discrepancies. The 

commenters suggested that DHS clarify 

in the regulations that a petition with 

explainable discrepancies will be 

receipted by USCIS and that the 

petitioner will be provided an 

opportunity to explain the discrepancy. 

Response: As proposed, new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1) provides that 

USCIS may deny an H–1B petition or 

revoke an approved H–1B petition if 

there is a change in the beneficiary’s 

identifying information from 

registration to petition filing. The 

regulatory text does not state that USCIS 

will reject an H–1B petition if there is 

a change in the beneficiary’s identifying 

information. As further explained in the 

NPRM, USCIS will typically afford the 

petitioner the opportunity to respond 

when identifying information provided 

on the registration does not match the 

information provided on the petition, 

and petitioners would need to be 

prepared to explain and document the 

reason for any change in identifying 

information. 88 FR 72870, 72898 (Oct. 

23, 2023). DHS believes that the 

regulatory text, combined with the 

preamble explanation in the NPRM and 

this explanation, is sufficiently clear to 

explain that USCIS will receive these 

petitions and that the petitioner will 

have the opportunity to explain the 

discrepancies prior to denial or 

revocation. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed appreciation for USCIS’ effort 

to reduce fraud in the H–1B selection 

process but at the same time expressed 

concern over potential impacts on 

stateless individuals, refugees, and other 

persons who are unable to obtain valid 

passports. For instance, an individual 

commenter stated that USCIS should 

also accept registrations for beneficiaries 

who are refugees and cannot obtain a 

passport from their country of origin. 

The commenter suggested that USCIS 

use other travel documents from 

countries of refugees instead of only 

passports. The commenter added that 

these documents contain identification 

numbers similar to passport numbers, 

and that existing Department of State 

practices permit visas to be issued on 

these documents. An individual 

commenter expressed their belief that it 

is unfair to bar stateless individuals 

from obtaining a cap-subject H–1B visa, 

which would severely restrict the ability 

of U.S. employers to hire these 

individuals. A joint comment from two 

advocacy groups commended USCIS’ 

‘‘demonstrated concern for stateless 

individuals’’ and stated that USCIS 

should allow individuals to provide a 

unique identifier other than a passport, 

accompanied by an explanation of why 

they cannot obtain a valid passport. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that the requirement to submit valid 

passport information would prevent 

employers from submitting registrations 

for stateless individuals, those unable to 

extend or renew passports, refugees, 

people who have fled their countries, 

and individuals with lost or expired 

passports. The commenter suggested 

that the registration process should have 

an option for registrants to attest that 

beneficiaries are stateless, with 

additional data requirements verifying 

identity for this group such as asking for 

an A-number or an employment 

authorization document (EAD) card 

number that could serve as an 

acceptable identification substitute for 

the passport number. A different 

commenter suggested USCIS accept 

‘‘alternative identity documentation, 

provided by a national, State, or local 

government or an international 

organization,’’ out of concern for 

stateless individuals, refugees, other 

individuals who were forced to flee 

their country without passports, and 

other individuals who are unable to 

obtain valid passports. Another 

commenter similarly suggested that 

DHS accept alternative documents 

‘‘including other federal or State issued 

identification documents that provide 

similar security integrity safeguards’’ as 

passports. Other commenters suggested 

adding a disclaimer on the registration 

that falsely claiming to be a stateless 

individual will result in the denial of a 

subsequently filed H–1B cap petition 

and revocation of the registration 

selection notice. A comment from 

multiple members of Congress 

recommended that DHS ‘‘create an 

exception to the passport requirement 

for stateless individuals and those who 

are unable to obtain a valid passport due 

to extraordinary circumstances outside 

their control.’’ 

Response: In light of these 

comments—and consistent with the 

Administration’s dedication to 

promoting access for refugees and 

stateless individuals—DHS is allowing 

either the beneficiary’s valid passport 

information or valid travel document 

information to be submitted for H–1B 

registration purposes. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii) and 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1). As stated above, 

this modification is intended to 

narrowly accommodate stateless 

individuals, refugees, and other 

individuals who are unable to obtain 

valid passports. DHS believes that it is 

important to accommodate especially 

vulnerable populations, such as 

stateless individuals and refugees. At 

the same time, this narrow 

accommodation is not expected to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7465 

13CBP, ‘‘Carrier Information Guide: United States 

Document Requirements for Travel,’’ https://

www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/ 

2023-Nov/Carrier%20Information%20Guide%20

ENGLISH.pdf (stating that ‘‘National identity cards, 

cedulas, matriculas consular, certificates of 

citizenship, certificates of naturalization and other 

civil identity or vital statistics documents are NOT 

considered travel documents and are NOT valid for 

departure from the U.S. by air,’’ and listing a 

driver’s license, birth certificate, matricula 

consular, cedula, and national identification card as 

among the examples of documents that are ‘‘not 

acceptable for entry to or departure from the United 

States.’’). 

significantly increase the risk that a 

beneficiary would be registered under 

more than one identity document, as a 

valid travel document that the 

beneficiary intends to use to enter the 

United States is inherently limited to a 

single document. 

DHS declines to allow additional 

types of identifying documentation for 

H–1B registration purposes. While a 

narrow accommodation to the passport 

requirement is not expected to 

significantly increase the risk that a 

beneficiary would be registered under 

more than one identity document, DHS 

believes that allowing additional 

identifying documentation would make 

the registration system more susceptible 

to abuse. Adding more types of 

acceptable documentation will heighten 

the likelihood that beneficiaries would 

have more than one document that 

could be used for registration to game 

the system and give them more than one 

chance in the selection. For example, a 

beneficiary could have multiple EAD 

card numbers or have both an EAD card 

number and a passport number. 

However, DHS does not believe that an 

individual would likely have both a 

valid passport and a valid travel 

document that they intend to use to 

enter the United States in H–1B status; 

it is unclear what legitimate reason an 

individual would have to use both a 

valid passport and another valid travel 

document when seeking to enter the 

United States in H–1B status. Further, 

‘‘alternative identity documentation 

provided by a national, State, or local 

government or an international 

organization’’ or ‘‘other federal or state 

issued identification documents’’ could 

encompass a broad range of documents 

of varying credibility which increases 

the potential for abuse. For instance, an 

‘‘alternative identity document’’ could 

include a state or provincial identity 

card, driver’s license, cedula, matricula 

consular, or other civil identity or vital 

statistics document which is not 

considered a travel document and is not 

valid for entry to or departure from the 

United States by air.13 It is not clear 

what advantage would be gained by 

expanding the universe of acceptable 

documents to an EAD card or another 

alternative identity document that 

cannot be used to enter the United 

States in H–1B status, in line with the 

purpose of submitting a registration for 

the prospective beneficiary in the first 

place, compared to the increased risk for 

fraud that broadening the universe of 

acceptable documents would pose. 

DHS also declines to add a new 

attestation on the registration that 

falsely claiming to be a stateless 

individual will result in the denial or 

revocation of the H–1B petition, or 

finding the registration invalid. As 

stated above, DHS has modified the 

passport requirement to also allow for a 

valid travel document. While this 

modification is intended to narrowly 

accommodate stateless individuals, 

refugees, and others who are unable to 

obtain valid passports, it is not limited 

to such individuals; thus, it is not 

necessary to add a new attestation 

regarding false claims of statelessness or 

other claims regarding why an 

individual does not have a valid 

passport. In addition, the registration 

tool continues to ask for the 

beneficiary’s country of citizenship and 

provides an option for the registrant to 

list the beneficiary as ‘‘stateless.’’ The 

registration tool also continues to 

require the registrant to certify, under 

penalty of perjury, that they have 

reviewed the registration(s) and that all 

of the information contained in the 

submission is complete, true, and 

correct. 

Comment: A commenter stated that, 

while passport information is helpful, 

‘‘there are legitimate reasons why a 

registrant may be unable to provide 

valid passport information, and 

excluding those registrants is 

antithetical to ensuring they can 

petition for the best and brightest.’’ The 

commenter noted that it is reasonable to 

assume that some individuals may not 

have valid passports at the time of 

registration but would be able to obtain 

them by the time of filing a petition, and 

suggested DHS retain the option to 

allow beneficiaries to register if they 

certify that they do not have a valid 

passport. 

Response: As noted above, DHS will 

retain the passport requirement in the 

final rule but has modified the proposed 

passport requirement to also allow for a 

valid travel document. Requiring valid 

passport or travel document 

information, combined with the other 

collected biographical information, will 

allow USCIS to identify unique 

individuals more reliably, increasing the 

likelihood that each individual would 

have the same opportunity to be 

selected, if random selection were 

required. While DHS recognizes that 

some individuals may not possess a 

valid passport or travel document, DHS 

has a strong interest in requiring 

passport or travel document information 

for each beneficiary, regardless of 

nationality, to better identify unique 

beneficiaries and enhance the integrity 

of the H–1B registration system. Further, 

and consistent with what DHS stated in 

the NPRM, DHS believes that requiring 

passport or travel document information 

is reasonable because each registration 

should represent a legitimate job offer. 

In the absence of a valid passport or 

travel document, it is not clear how 

most beneficiaries could enter the 

United States in H–1B status pursuant 

to that job offer. Therefore, this rule will 

only accelerate the time by which the 

beneficiary needs to obtain a passport or 

travel document if the beneficiary does 

not already have one of those 

documents. See 88 FR 72870, 72898 

(Oct. 23, 2023). 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns with fraud related to 

the passport requirement. These 

commenters indicated that a passport 

number alone is insufficient to identify 

a unique beneficiary because 

individuals are able to obtain multiple 

passports or fraudulent passports. For 

example, a commenter said that people 

with dual citizenship or citizenship in 

multiple countries could potentially 

exploit the registration system by filing 

with different passport numbers and 

country of issuance. One commenter 

mentioned the potential exploitation of 

the system from individuals using 

multiple identities or passports from 

different countries, while a couple of 

other commenters expressed concern 

that individuals might abuse or 

circumvent the proposed passport 

requirement and discussed the 

importance of using additional 

identifiers to avoid potential fraud. 

Several commenters provided 

alternatives related to identifying 

information, suggesting that USCIS: 

• Link a registration or the definition 

of ‘‘unique’’ to an individual’s Social 

Security number (SSN) or Individual 

Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN); 

• Require a history of passports; 

• Include a declaration of 

authenticity or an affirmation of truth; 

• Require additional information, 

including the name, date of birth, place 

of birth, and similar information in 

addition to passport information; 

• Verify passport information 

provided on registrations and petitions 

are correct and legitimate; 

• Require a photograph (and use face 

recognition technology) at registration, 

or require both a photo and passport 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

14See ‘‘Modernizing H–1B Requirements, 

Providing Flexibility in the F–1 Program, and 

Program Improvements Affecting Other 

Nonimmigrant Workers,’’ 88 FR 72870, 72898 (Oct. 

23, 2023) (‘‘Even if a beneficiary had more than one 

valid passport, such as a beneficiary with dual 

citizenship, a beneficiary would only be able to be 

registered under one of those passports.’’). 

number to be submitted on the visa 

petition and with any lottery 

registration application to ensure the 

beneficiary is the same person at every 

step; 

• Use an alternative process where a 

prospective beneficiary submits a 

registration with their personal 

information (including passport 

information) to USCIS, and USCIS will 

send that prospective beneficiary a 

confirmation PDF containing a unique 

confirmation number employers can 

then use to identify and register the 

beneficiary; and 

• Require prospective beneficiaries to 

‘‘provide biometric information during 

the application process.’’ 

Response: DHS has considered the 

concern of potential exploitation 

through using fraudulent passports or 

multiple passports. DHS believes that 

using a passport number as a unique 

identifier is a reasonable approach that 

appropriately balances the interests of 

integrity in the selection process with 

access to the registration system. DHS 

also believes its expansion to allow for 

a valid travel document in lieu of a 

valid passport does not significantly 

increase the risk of exploitation through 

using fraudulent or multiple travel 

documents, particularly since a valid 

travel document that the beneficiary 

intends to use to enter the United States 

is inherently limited in scope. Further, 

the regulations clearly state that a 

beneficiary may only be registered 

under one passport or travel document. 

See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4). 

The final rule also contains other 

safeguards that are sufficient to address 

potential exploitation. The regulations 

at new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2), 

make clear that a beneficiary having 

multiple registrations filed on their 

behalf using different identifying 

information is grounds for finding the 

registrations invalid and denying, or 

revoking the approval of, any H–1B 

petition filed on their behalf. Thus, if 

USCIS determines that registrations 

were submitted for the same beneficiary 

but using different passport information, 

USCIS would have the authority to 

invalidate such registrations and deny 

or revoke the approval of any H–1B 

petition filed based on those 

registrations under new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(2). USCIS may do so 

even if the beneficiary had more than 

one valid passport or travel document, 

such as a beneficiary with dual 

citizenship who has passports issued by 

different countries.14

USCIS will also continue to require 

information on a beneficiary’s legal 

name, date of birth, and country of birth 

as part of the registration process. 

USCIS will use this information to 

analyze registration information and 

identify instances where beneficiaries 

are registered with different identifying 

information. When USCIS identifies 

such instances, any H–1B petition filed 

for that beneficiary may be subject to 

denial or revocation. 

With respect to comments that 

suggested USCIS use a Social Security 

number or individual taxpayer 

identification number as a unique 

identifier, DHS believes requiring a 

Social Security number or individual 

taxpayer identification number would 

not be feasible as individuals who have 

never held H–1B status or another 

nonimmigrant status or employment 

authorization in the United States likely 

would not have such numbers. In regard 

to the suggestion to collect biometrics, 

including photos, for beneficiaries prior 

to the registration process, DHS notes 

that collecting biometrics for all 

beneficiaries prior to registration would 

be operationally infeasible for USCIS 

and would add additional burdens for 

beneficiaries, especially those overseas. 

In regard to the suggestion to collect a 

history of passports, DHS believes this 

would be overly burdensome for USCIS, 

registrants, and beneficiaries. DHS will 

collect sufficient information to enable 

USCIS to identify the beneficiary of the 

registration, check for duplicate 

registrations submitted by the same 

prospective petitioner, and match 

selected registrations with subsequently 

filed H–1B petitions, without overly 

burdening the employer or collecting 

unnecessary information, in compliance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). Requiring a valid passport or 

valid travel document strikes the 

balance between protecting the integrity 

of the registration system and 

maintaining accessibility to the 

registration system and the H–1B 

program. 

With respect to the suggestion that 

USCIS include an affirmation of truth 

on the registration, in completing the H– 

1B registration, the registrant must 

already certify, under penalty of perjury, 

that the information contained in the 

registration is complete, true and 

correct. The registrant must also certify 

that the registration reflects a legitimate 

job offer, and that the registrant intends 

to file an H–1B petition on behalf of the 

individual named in the registration. 

DHS believes the existing attestations 

are sufficient. 

DHS also considered the suggestion 

that USCIS use an alternative process 

where a prospective beneficiary receives 

a unique confirmation number from 

USCIS after submitting their passport 

number, which the beneficiary would 

then give to potential employers to enter 

in the registration system. This 

alternative process, however, would not 

be any more effective than identifying a 

prospective beneficiary by their valid 

passport or travel document information 

as provided by a prospective petitioner 

or its representative because DHS would 

continue to rely on the beneficiary to 

provide accurate information to both 

DHS and the prospective petitioner or 

its representative. This two-step process 

would add additional time to the overall 

registration period with no explanation 

provided of how it would enhance 

identity verification more than the 

proposed beneficiary centric process. 

4. Implementation and Effective Date 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

requested that USCIS implement the 

rule for the FY 2025 cap season (the H– 

1B registration period and related 

selection process beginning in March 

2024). Many commenters requested the 

proposed rule be implemented as soon 

as possible. A couple of commenters 

similarly requested swift 

implementation of the proposed rule 

with no specified timeframe, while a 

few commenters remarked that they 

hope the proposed rule could take effect 

‘‘right now’’. One commenter stated it is 

likely that multiple registrations will 

‘‘skyrocket’’ this upcoming H–1B cap 

season without immediate 

implementation of the beneficiary 

centric provision. Additionally, a 

commenter asked DHS to consider 

whether this portion of the NPRM 

should proceed separately and be 

promulgated as an interim final rule as 

soon as possible in order to ensure that 

it is in effect in advance of the 2024 cap 

registration cycle. 

Multiple commenters stated that 

quick implementation of the proposed 

rule would increase fairness, equity, and 

integrity in the registration process. A 

commenter said that the planned 

implementation for the FY 2025 H–1B 

cap season demonstrated the 

government’s commitment to improving 

the immigration system. Another 

commenter stressed the need for 

implementation ‘‘before next year’s 

selection process,’’ reasoning that 

potential beneficiaries have time 

constraints for getting the H–1B visa 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7467 

15 ‘‘Modernizing H–1B Requirements, Providing 

Flexibility in the F–1 Program, and Program 

Improvements Affecting Other Nonimmigrant 

Workers,’’ 88 FR 72870, 72898 (Oct. 23, 2023) (‘‘If 

a beneficiary were selected, each registrant that 

submitted a registration on that beneficiary’s behalf 

would be notified of selection and would be eligible 

to file a petition on that beneficiary’s behalf. See 

proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1) and (4).’’). 

when they work with F–1 OPT or STEM 

OPT. 

Response: DHS agrees with the need 

for prompt implementation of this rule. 

This rule will be effective in time for the 

FY 2025 H–1B cap season (the H–1B 

registration period and related selection 

process beginning in March 2024). 

Comment: Some commenters 

encouraged DHS to separate and move 

forward with the proposed H–1B 

registration changes for the upcoming 

cap season, but to refrain from finalizing 

any of the other provisions until it has 

sufficiently considered stakeholder 

feedback. Another commenter requested 

DHS to consider implementing these 

changes in phases so that stakeholders 

will be aware of what is coming. 

Response: As stated above, DHS will 

finalize the proposed H–1B registration 

changes and other registration-related 

provisions in time for the FY 2025 H– 

1B cap season. DHS continues to 

consider public comments received on 

the other proposed changes included in 

the October 23 NPRM and plans to issue 

a separate final rule to finalize or 

otherwise address those proposed 

changes. 

5. Other Comments on the Beneficiary 

Centric Selection Process 

Comment: A few commenters 

requested clarification on the process 

for registrants after a beneficiary is 

selected. A commenter asked whether 

USCIS would adjudicate all petitions 

filed for a beneficiary or whether the 

Department would randomly select an 

employer. Another commenter 

encouraged DHS to clarify whether it 

permits all selected registrants to file an 

H–1B petition or if it will only allow 

one of the selected registrants to 

proceed. Additionally, a commenter 

asked DHS to include a clearly defined 

systemic mechanism that allows 

employers to know how to submit the 

sponsoring petition if a beneficiary has 

had multiple employers submit a 

registration on their behalf thereby 

eliminating the need for employers to 

solely rely on their beneficiaries to share 

this information. 

Response: Where a selected 

beneficiary has multiple H–1B petitions 

that are properly filed on their behalf 

based on valid registrations, USCIS will 

adjudicate each petition. DHS did not 

propose to, nor will it, randomly select 

an employer whose petition it will 

adjudicate. As the NPRM states, if a 

beneficiary were selected, each 

registrant that submitted a registration 

on that beneficiary’s behalf would be 

notified by USCIS of selection and 

would be eligible to file a petition on 

that beneficiary’s behalf.15 This is not a 

change from the current registration 

system, under which more than one 

registrant can register for the same 

beneficiary and any selected registrant 

is eligible to file an H–1B petition on 

behalf of that beneficiary if the petition 

is based on a valid registration selection 

notice. More than one registrant can file 

a petition on behalf of a single selected 

beneficiary and USCIS will adjudicate 

all properly filed petitions. DHS has no 

role in deciding which registrants 

ultimately choose to file a petition based 

on their selected beneficiary. It is 

expected that registrants will 

communicate with the selected 

beneficiary to make informed decisions 

regarding whether to file an H–1B 

petition. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

concerns with allowing multiple 

registration entries for an individual, 

and suggested changes to the 

registration system to prohibit or reject 

multiple registrations for a single 

beneficiary. One commenter suggested 

that only the submission for a 

beneficiary from the ‘‘most current 

employer’’ should be valid and all 

others voided. Another commenter 

specified that DHS should not only 

eliminate the ability for related entities 

to submit a single registrant multiple 

times, but also prevent unrelated 

registrants from submitting multiple 

registrations for a beneficiary. Some of 

these commenters stated generally that 

multiple registrations should not 

increase the chance a beneficiary is 

selected, as submitting multiple entries 

for one individual is unfair to other 

individuals. Additionally, a commenter 

remarked that duplicate entries for 

beneficiaries by consultancies 

undermines the fairness of the selection 

process. Another commenter, expressing 

support for the proposed registration 

process, remarked on other negative 

impacts of current abuse on the H–1B 

program stating that since H–1B holders 

can legally work for only one employer 

at a time, there is no rationale for 

selecting multiple entries for a potential 

beneficiary in the lottery system and 

wasting USCIS resources. 

Response: Like the commenters, DHS 

is concerned with the integrity of the 

registration system and attempts to 

circumvent the selection process under 

the current registration system. As such, 

the focus of this rule is to ensure that 

each individual beneficiary has an equal 

chance of selection and to remove the 

advantage of submitting multiple 

registrations for the same beneficiary to 

increase the chances of selection. 

However, DHS declines to restrict the 

registration process to one total 

registration per beneficiary. DHS 

acknowledges that there could be 

legitimate reasons for an individual to 

have more than one registration 

submitted on their behalf. Moreover, the 

beneficiary centric selection process 

will essentially accomplish the goal 

these suggestions seek to achieve, which 

is to ensure that each individual 

beneficiary has an equal chance of 

selection and reduce fraud. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed the need for DHS to allow 

registrants to view if multiple 

registrations have been submitted for a 

beneficiary. For instance, a commenter 

generally supported the proposed 

beneficiary centric system but expressed 

a need to ‘‘[ensure] fairness for 

employers who invest in foreign 

national talent’’ by providing employers 

with visibility into a beneficiary’s 

multiple registrations. The commenter 

recommended that USCIS include in the 

selection notification to employers an 

indication of either: (1) the number of 

employer registrations; or (2) whether 

the beneficiary has one or multiple 

employer registrations. The commenter 

stated that such information will help 

employers make more informed 

decisions when deciding to invest 

significant resources to file an H–1B 

petition and will also help reduce any 

legal consequences that may arise from 

multiple petitions being approved for 

the same beneficiary. Other commenters 

similarly requested USCIS to institute a 

mechanism that informs a potential 

employer that a beneficiary has more 

than one registration. One commenter 

suggested it would be fair for the U.S. 

employer to see if the beneficiary has 

multiple registrations because the H–1B 

is employer-sponsored. 

Response: While DHS agrees that the 

H–1B process is employer-sponsored, 

DHS declines to make these suggested 

changes. It is expected that prospective 

petitioners will communicate with their 

selected beneficiaries to make informed 

decisions regarding whether to file an 

H–1B petition. DHS also notes that the 

beneficiary centric selection process 

does not substantially differ from the 

current registration-based selection 

process in this regard and remains an 

employer-driven process given that 

registrations and petitions will continue 

to be submitted by sponsoring 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7468 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

employers. A beneficiary in the current 

registration-based selection process may 

have multiple valid registrations 

selected that were submitted on their 

behalf by different companies, and thus 

have multiple petitions filed on their 

behalf by different companies based on 

those valid registration selection 

notices. Allowing for multiple cap 

petitions is consistent with INA section 

214(g)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(7), which 

states that when multiple cap petitions 

are filed and approved for a beneficiary, 

the beneficiary shall only be counted 

once toward the H–1B numerical 

allocations. DHS also believes that the 

commenter’s suggestions regarding 

sharing information about registrations 

submitted by other prospective 

petitioners for a selected beneficiary 

goes beyond the intent of the narrow 

changes implemented in this final rule, 

which is to better ensure that each 

unique beneficiary has the same chance 

of selection in the H–1B registration 

selection process. As such, DHS 

declines to adopt the commenters’ 

suggestions. 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

support for allowing all companies that 

submitted a registration for a selected 

beneficiary to file an H–1B petition. The 

commenter noted possible negative 

consequences of not limiting the 

number of H–1B petitions that can be 

submitted for a selected beneficiary but 

concluded that allowing all companies 

that submitted a registration for a 

selected beneficiary to file an H–1B 

petition is ‘‘a good solution.’’ For 

example, the commenter noted that 

requiring a beneficiary to choose only 

one employer upon which to proceed 

with H–1B filing will be detrimental to 

the beneficiary if that sole petition is not 

approved or if it is approved and the 

beneficiary loses the job after approval 

but before the effective date. 

Response: DHS appreciates the 

commenter’s feedback and confirms that 

generally all prospective petitioners that 

properly submitted a registration for a 

selected beneficiary will be eligible to 

file an H–1B petition for the beneficiary 

named in their registration selection 

notice during the applicable filing 

period, provided that they are not 

related entities without a legitimate 

business need to file multiple cap 

petitions. 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested clarity on how multiple H–1B 

petition approvals would affect a 

beneficiary’s status. A commenter urged 

DHS to ‘‘clarify and codify that each 

approved H–1B petition is valid, and 

that neither the date of filing, the date 

of adjudication (benefiting those filing 

with premium processing), or the 

requested start date (for those chosen in 

later selections) impact the validity of 

an approved H–1B petition, and that the 

beneficiary can commence work under 

any of the approved petitions even if 

another petition in the same H–1B filing 

period is subsequently approved.’’ 

Another commenter asked for clarity 

regarding possible status issues that 

could result from the current NPRM, 

including clarifying that a petition is 

only ‘‘active’’ when the beneficiary 

begins to work for the petitioner. This 

commenter stated that such clarification 

will be particularly important if DHS 

finalizes its proposal regarding a flexible 

start date. A different commenter asked 

for clarification that ‘‘any filed and 

approved petitions will remain valid 

until withdrawal by the petitioner’’ and 

noted that multiple petition approvals 

requesting change of status may cause 

confusion regarding the beneficiary’s 

status. 

Response: The filing of multiple 

petitions for the same beneficiary has 

always been a possibility, such as in 

concurrent employment situations. DHS 

confirms that an approved H–1B 

petition may remain valid 

notwithstanding the subsequent 

approval of an H–1B petition for the 

same beneficiary. DHS further confirms 

that upon approval of a cap-subject 

petition, including a request for change 

of status, the starting validity date will 

be the start date reflected on Form I– 

797, Notice of Action (Approval Notice), 

notwithstanding the date of filing, the 

date of adjudication, or the requested 

start date on the petition. DHS also 

confirms that a beneficiary may 

commence work under any of the 

approved petitions as long as they 

remain valid and the beneficiary is in 

H–1B nonimmigrant status, as is the 

case under current practice. Given that 

the regulation states that a petitioner 

shall immediately notify USCIS of any 

changes in the terms and conditions of 

employment of a beneficiary, DHS 

reminds petitioners of their obligation to 

file new or amended petitions where 

appropriate and their ability to 

withdraw petitions where appropriate. 

See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(i)(A), (iii)(A)(1). 

DHS would also like to clarify that 

providing start date flexibility does not 

impact the beneficiary’s status when 

multiple petitions are filed but is a 

narrow revision codifying current 

practice that allows a later start date 

when there are multiple rounds of 

selection, and the petition filing 

window extends beyond October 1. As 

explained in the NPRM, other 

restrictions on the petition start date 

will remain in place, such as the 

requirement that a petition may not be 

filed earlier than 6 months before the 

date of actual need. See 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(I). 

Comment: A few commenters 

indicated that DHS should not allow 

more than one petition per beneficiary. 

A commenter requested that DHS 

provide, in regulation, a process that 

USCIS would allow only one petition 

per beneficiary to be filed at a time, 

which would reduce the risk of multiple 

filings and prevent unnecessary use of 

USCIS resources. Under this process, if 

a petition is denied other than due to 

fraud or misrepresentation, a selected 

beneficiary could then pursue H–1B 

status through other employers that 

submitted registrations on their behalf. 

Another commenter noted that 

‘‘allowing multiple petitions would 

result in unnecessary inefficiencies for 

both USCIS and petitioning employers.’’ 

Response: With respect to the 

suggestion that DHS restrict the petition 

filing process to one total petition per 

beneficiary, DHS declines to make this 

change. Under current practice, the 

filing of multiple petitions for the same 

beneficiary has always been a 

possibility, and the beneficiary centric 

process is not designed to change this 

practice. 

Section 214(g)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 

1184(g)(7), specifically contemplates 

that more than one petition can be filed 

for a beneficiary (‘‘Where multiple 

petitions are approved for 1 alien, that 

alien shall be counted only once’’). 

Thus, such a limitation may not be 

consistent with that statute. DHS also 

acknowledges that there could be 

legitimate reasons for an individual to 

have more than one petition filed by 

different petitioners on their behalf. 

D. Start Date Flexibility for Certain H– 

1B Cap-Subject Petitions 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

expressed broad support for the 

proposal to permit start date flexibility 

for certain H–1B cap-subject petitions, 

with one stating that the change to 

permit requested start dates on or after 

October 1 of the relevant fiscal year will 

benefit F–1 students and universities 

and another stating that the change 

‘‘codifies the elimination of a confusing 

‘‘trap’’ for ‘‘visa lottery’’ H–1B visa 

petitioners.’’ One commenter asked the 

agency to explicitly provide start date 

flexibility in situations where a 

requested validity period ends before 

the petitioner receives the approval 

notice. 

Response: DHS agrees with the 

comments that providing start date 

flexibility for certain H–1B cap-subject 

petitions will be beneficial in many 

ways. As stated in the NPRM, this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7469 

proposal will align the regulations 

related to H–1B cap-subject petitions 

with current USCIS practice, which is to 

permit a requested petition start date of 

October 1 or later, as long as the 

requested petition start date does not 

exceed 6 months beyond the filing date 

of the petition. 88 FR 72870, 72888, 

72898 (Oct. 23, 2023). The request to 

provide start date flexibility in 

situations where a requested validity 

period ends before the petitioner 

receives the approval notice does not 

align with the changes that DHS 

proposed in the NPRM about the start 

date, which was to remove the language 

at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4) that 

limited the requested start date when 

filing a cap-subject petition. Rather, this 

request aligns with the proposed 

‘‘Validity Expires Before Adjudication’’ 

provision at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(9)(ii)(D)(1) 

of the NPRM. DHS is not finalizing that 

provision in this rule. The start date 

flexibility provision relates only to the 

flexibility in start date that petitioners 

may use on cap subject H–1B filings, as 

described in the NPRM, allowing start 

dates after October 1 of the applicable 

fiscal year. 

E. Registration Related Integrity 

Measures 

1. Bar on Multiple Registrations and 

Petitions Submitted by Related Entities 

Without a Legitimate Business Need 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed general support for the bar on 

multiple registrations submitted by 

related entities at proposed 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). A few commenters 

wrote that the proposed bar would help 

reduce fraud and exploitation of the 

selection process. Additionally, a few 

commenters reasoned that the proposed 

provision would promote equity and 

fairness in the selection process, noting 

that the proposed provision mirrors the 

existing restrictions on filing multiple 

cap-subject petitions. Furthermore, a 

commenter remarked that the proposal 

would reinforce legitimate business 

needs as the basis for selection. 

Response: DHS appreciates the 

commenters’ feedback but has decided 

not to finalize the proposed bar on 

multiple registrations submitted by 

related entities at this time, although 

DHS intends to address and may 

finalize this proposed provision in a 

subsequent final rule. While the 

intention behind this provision is to 

reduce fraud in the selection process, 

changing the structure of the registration 

process to a beneficiary centric selection 

process will reduce fraud and abuse of 

the registration process and more time 

and data will help inform the utility of 

this proposed provision. 

Comment: A commenter applauded 

the change to a beneficiary centric 

registration system but opined that this 

change ‘‘makes unnecessary any 

requirement that related entities prove a 

legitimate business need to file multiple 

petitions for the same beneficiary’’ 

under current 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G). 

The commenter ‘‘urge[d] USCIS to 

delete the portion of 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) dealing with related 

entities in its entirety.’’ Other 

commenters similarly questioned the 

need to restrict multiple petitions by 

related entities under the beneficiary 

centric system, with one commenter 

stating that, in reality, some related 

entities are so large that they do not 

communicate and/or coordinate 

workforce issues with each other. 

Response: DHS declines to make any 

changes to current 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) at this time. DHS did 

not propose to eliminate or alter current 

8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) with respect to 

multiple petitions by related entities 

without a legitimate business need. As 

stated in the NPRM, if registration were 

suspended, this bar on multiple 

petitions would remain relevant. 88 FR 

72888, 72900 (Oct. 23, 2023). Even 

when registration is required, and even 

with the change to a beneficiary centric 

selection process, DHS believes that the 

bar on multiple H–1B cap petitions by 

related entities without a legitimate 

business need remains an integrity 

measure to guard against related entities 

filing multiple petitions without a 

legitimate business need simply to 

increase their chances of getting an 

approval and resulting cap number/ 

exemption for the selected beneficiary. 

While unrelated entities would likely 

not be working together and would have 

no incentive to file multiple H–1B cap 

petitions for the same beneficiary 

without a legitimate business need, 

related entities would have an incentive 

to work together to file multiple H–1B 

cap petitions for the same beneficiary 

simply to increase their chances of 

getting an approval for that beneficiary. 

While the new beneficiary centric 

selection process will likely eliminate 

the incentive for related entities to game 

the system to increase the odds of 

selection at the registration stage, DHS 

does not believe that the beneficiary 

centric selection process will eliminate 

or significantly impact the incentives to 

game the system to increase the odds of 

approval at the petition stage that 

currently exist and are mitigated by the 

existing regulation. Thus, DHS disagrees 

with the commenters that the 

beneficiary centric selection process 

will render the bar on multiple petitions 

by related entities at current 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) unnecessary. 

DHS acknowledges that the existing 

‘‘related entities’’ and ‘‘legitimate 

business need’’ standards place some 

evidentiary burden on petitioners. 

However, removing those limitations 

would essentially allow all petitioners 

to file multiple H–1B cap petitions for 

the same beneficiary without any 

restrictions. DHS believes the existing 

burdens to petitioners are outweighed 

by the increased risk of gaming that 

removing all restrictions on multiple H– 

1B cap petitions by related entities, 

absent a legitimate business need, 

would pose. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

DHS should eliminate the portion of 

proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) which 

discusses ‘‘related entities’’ because, in 

part, the terms ‘‘related entities’’ and 

‘‘legitimate business need’’ used in the 

provision are ambiguous, unworkable, 

and likely to contribute unnecessarily to 

agency backlogs. 

Response: The existing prohibition on 

related entities filing multiple petitions 

for the same beneficiary at 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) remains. DHS is not 

making any changes to existing 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(2)(i)(G), noting that the terms 

‘‘related entities’’ and ‘‘legitimate 

business need’’ in the provision are not 

new terms and that USCIS issued policy 

guidance on these terms in Matter of SInc., Adopted Decision 2018–02 (AAO 

Mar. 23, 2018). 

2. Registrations With False Information 

or That Are Otherwise Invalid 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

expressed support for codifying the 

ability for USCIS to deny H–1B petitions 

or revoke approved petitions on the 

basis that it includes a false attestation. 

The commenters said this change 

showed the importance of accuracy and 

honesty in the registration system and 

would make the system more resilient 

and dependable in resisting fraudulent 

activity. 

Response: DHS agrees with the 

commenters that codifying the ability 

for USCIS to deny or revoke H–1B 

petitions that provide untrue, incorrect, 

inaccurate, or fraudulent statements of 

fact, or misrepresent material facts, 

including providing false attestations on 

the registration, will improve the 

integrity of the registration system. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed concern with extending 

regulations on denials and revocation of 

H–1B petitions for statements on 

petitions that are ‘‘inaccurate, 

fraudulent, or misrepresented a material 

fact’’ to information provided in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

16USCIS, ‘‘H–1B Electronic Registration Process,’’ 

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/ 

temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-andfashion-models/h-1b-electronic-registration-process 

(last updated July 31, 2023). 

17 Id. 

registration, particularly with respect to 

typographical errors. For instance, a 

commenter expressed concern with 

USCIS expanding the regulations at 

proposed 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10)(ii), 

(h)(11)(iii)(A)(2), stating that this 

expansion would allow ‘‘automatically 

denying or revoking H–1B petitions due 

to inaccurate information contained on 

a registration’’ and would not allow a 

petitioner an opportunity to correct an 

unintentional typographical error. The 

commenter recommended changes to 

the regulatory text at 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1) to codify that 

USCIS may excuse typographical errors 

on a registration in its discretion when 

‘‘the H–1B petition [is] supported by 

relevant identity documents and where 

[the] petitioner satisfies USCIS that the 

inaccuracy was unintentional and did 

not create any advantage in the lottery 

selection.’’ A few commenters stated 

that the final rule should permit some 

ability to correct typographical, nonsubstantive errors, with one commenter 

requesting DHS amend the regulatory 

text to specifically state that USCIS may 

excuse typographical errors on a 

registration in its discretion. One of 

these commenters also requested that 

DHS allow officer discretion regarding 

permissible changes to identifying 

information rather than an exhaustive 

list of scenarios in which the change 

will be acceptable. Another commenter 

stated that automatically denying or 

revoking H–1B petitions solely due to 

typographical errors in the registration 

is inconsistent with current USCIS 

policy. Another commenter stated that 

the regulatory provision does not clearly 

indicate how USCIS will review and 

accept petitions that have explainable 

discrepancies and said that the 

regulations should explicitly state that 

USCIS will issue a receipt for a petition 

with discrepancies, which would 

provide the petitioner with an 

opportunity to address and explain any 

disparities. 

Response: DHS first notes that USCIS 

does not, and would not, automatically 

revoke a petition under 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(11)(iii), as that paragraph 

pertains to revocation on notice. See 8 

CFR 214.2(h)(11)(iii) (‘‘Revocation on 

notice’’). Thus, the proposed provision 

at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(2), as 

finalized by this rule, clearly provides 

for revocation upon notice. Regarding 

denials, the addition of the beneficiary 

centric selection process to the 

regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10)(ii) will 

not change the operation of that 

regulation or USCIS policy that 

generally provides for notice and an 

opportunity to respond prior to the 

denial of a petition. 

DHS will not adopt the suggestions to 

expressly codify that a ‘‘typographical 

error’’ may be a permissible change in 

identifying information in some 

circumstances at 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1), nor will it adopt 

any of the other related changes 

suggested by the commenters. DHS 

believes these changes are unnecessary. 

USCIS has not changed its position that 

it will not automatically reject the Form 

I–129 petition for typographical errors 

on the selected registration in 

comparison with the Form I–129.16 The 

burden remains on the registrant/ 

petitioner to confirm that all registration 

and petition information is correct and 

to establish that the H–1B cap petition 

is based on a valid registration 

submitted for the beneficiary named in 

the petition and selected by USCIS.17

Also, USCIS adjudicators already have 

the ability to exercise discretion after 

allowing the petitioner to explain a 

mismatch in identifying information. 

The NPRM made clear that ‘‘USCIS 

would typically afford the petitioner the 

opportunity to respond when 

identifying information provided on the 

registration does not match the 

information provided on the petition, 

and petitioners would need to be 

prepared to explain and document the 

reason for any change in identifying 

information. In its discretion, USCIS 

could find that a change in identifying 

information is permissible.’’ 88 FR 

72870, 72898 (Oct. 23, 2023). The 

phrase ‘‘could include, but would not be 

limited to’’ in new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(1) already makes clear 

that the listed circumstances are 

examples, not an exhaustive list. 

Additionally, when entering 

submissions in the registration tool, 

registrants and their representatives are 

given the opportunity to review the data 

entered before submitting, giving them 

ample time to double-check what is 

entered. Furthermore, registrants and 

their representatives have until the close 

of the registration period to correct any 

errors they may have made on a 

registration. As stated in the final 

registration rule, ‘‘USCIS will allow 

petitioners to edit a registration up until 

the petitioner submits the registration. A 

petitioner may delete a registration and 

resubmit it prior to the close of the 

registration period.’’ 84 FR 888, 900 

(Jan. 31, 2019). Thus, DHS believes 

registrants already have sufficient 

opportunities to identify and correct 

typographical errors. 

Finally, codifying language in the 

regulation about typographical errors in 

a registration may invite false claims of 

‘‘typographical error,’’ in an attempt to 

game the beneficiary centric registration 

process by trying to make one 

beneficiary appear as two different 

beneficiaries. DHS, therefore, will not 

adopt the commenter’s suggestion 

because codifying an exception for 

typographical errors could undermine 

the other changes being made in this 

final rule to limit the potential for abuse 

and gaming of the registration system 

and better ensure that each beneficiary 

has the same chance for selection. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

DHS ‘‘expressly add an intent 

requirement, or otherwise clarify the 

need for intentionality, before 

revocation is considered,’’ because there 

can be ‘‘several innocent reasons why a 

registration may be technically 

inaccurate.’’ 

Response: DHS does not believe it is 

necessary to introduce a requirement of 

intent to this provision. DHS believes 

registrants already have sufficient 

opportunity to address inaccuracies in 

information submitted in the 

registration process. As stated above, 

new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(iii)(A)(2) 

provides for revocation upon notice and 

the addition of registration to the 

regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10)(ii) does 

not change the operation of that 

regulation or USCIS policy that 

generally provides for notice and an 

opportunity to respond prior to the 

denial of a petition. USCIS adjudicators 

already have the ability to exercise 

discretion after allowing the petitioner 

to explain a mismatch in identifying 

information. 

Further, introducing a requirement of 

intent may needlessly complicate and 

delay adjudication. DHS believes that 

the regulatory framework, as proposed 

and finalized by this rule, sufficiently 

affords the ability to explain 

inaccuracies in the registration process. 

Comment: While discussing proposed 

8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(2), a joint 

submission from a professional 

association and an advocacy group 

suggested that the proposed section be 

either removed or amended, reasoning 

there was potential for ‘‘significant 

issues’’ with the payment mechanism 

during the registration process. 

Referencing issues associated with the 

Department of Treasury’s ‘‘Pay.gov’’ 

site, the commenters expressed concern 

that H–1B registrations could be rejected 

in situations where payment issues 

resulted from system issues, rather than 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7471 

18Pay.gov, ‘‘Frequently Asked Questions,’’ 

https://www.pay.gov/WebHelp/HTML/faqs.html 

(payments from bank accounts will be charged the 

next business day; credit and debit card payments 

are visible within 24 hours; payments through a 

payment service are charged according to the 

service’s schedule). (Last visited January 9, 2024.) 

19USCIS, ‘‘H–1B Electronic Registration Process,’’ 

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/ 

Continued 

user error. The commenters urged 

USCIS to ‘‘make every reasonable effort’’ 

to communicate with petitioners upon a 

payment issue being discovered so that 

it could be resolved and proposed 

‘‘specific changes’’ to the notification 

process associated with payment issues, 

including an email notification and a 

grace period following notification of a 

payment issue. A different commenter, 

while generally supportive of proposed 

8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(2), similarly 

requested a ‘‘notice and response 

process prior to denial or revocation of 

a petition’’ for invalid fees in 

recognition that ‘‘simple banking or 

other administrative errors could lead to 

unreconciled fees that do not reflect 

fraud or abuse of the system.’’ 

Response: DHS thanks the 

commenters for their feedback. 

However, DHS declines to adopt the 

commenters’ suggestions to allow a 

period of time to cure a deficient 

registration payment at the time of 

petition filing, or to provide in all cases 

a notice and response process prior to 

denying or revoking a petition. Proper 

submission of the registration is an 

antecedent procedural requirement to 

properly file the petition. Allowing a 

petition to be filed based on a 

registration with a deficient payment 

could create a framework in which there 

is little incentive to properly pay for any 

registration until it is selected, and a 

petition based on that registration is 

being filed. It would not be feasible to 

investigate in all cases whether a failed 

payment was truly in error or 

specifically done to delay paying the 

registration fee until that registration 

was selected and a petition filed. This 

would undermine the current fee 

structure that supports the registration 

system development, supporting 

services and maintenance. 

Allowing a registration with a 

deficient payment to be cured after 

selection could lead to an avenue to 

abuse the registration system. Currently, 

registrations that are designated as 

having a failed payment are not 

included in the H–1B cap selection 

process. If the suggested regulatory 

language were adopted, USCIS would 

have to include those registrations with 

a failed payment in the selection 

process (in order to properly give 

registrants the suggested 10 days to cure 

any payment deficiencies). As indicated 

above, this could lead to opportunities 

to abuse the system by simply delaying 

payment for all registrations until after 

the selection process is completed and 

then only paying for those that are 

selected. It could also mean that those 

registrations that truly failed payment 

would still be included in selection. 

This could lead to the selection of more 

registrations that would not be followed 

by a petition filing, thus increasing the 

difficulty in administering the cap. 

It is also operationally burdensome to 

collect the registration fee at the time of 

petition intake or in response to a 

request for evidence (RFE) or notice of 

intent to deny (NOID) on that petition. 

Requiring USCIS to manually process 

these payments upon petition intake via 

check or credit card payment (as 

opposed to the automated Pay.gov 

payment system in place at the time of 

registration) would not be operationally 

efficient and would require USCIS to 

incur additional expenses, as USCIS 

incurs a cost any time it must process 

additional payments or issue additional 

RFEs or NOIDs. 

DHS also will not currently adopt the 

suggestions to modify the registration 

system itself to further notify registrants 

of the status of their payments due to 

current system limitations and 

requirements. The registration system 

will notify registrants that payment has 

been initially processed. The 

registration system will also show the 

status of the registration as ‘‘InvalidatedFailed Payment’’ once USCIS identifies 

that the payment has failed, and USCIS 

will send registrants an email or SMS 

text to log into their account and check 

for updates. Additionally, payees can 

proactively confirm the status of a 

payment by contacting their bank, credit 

card company, or payment service, and 

confirm payment generally by the next 

business day, if not before.18 Thus, 

payees already have ways to confirm 

payment status at the registration stage 

and proactively take steps to remedy 

payment issues. Regardless, USCIS will 

consider options to display additional 

payment information within the 

registration system in the future. 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

expressed support for the proposal to 

add invalid registration as a ground for 

revocation, reasoning it showed the 

importance of honesty and accuracy in 

the registration process. A commenter 

added that the proposal would help to 

ensure the dependability and resiliency 

of the selection process against 

fraudulent practices. Another 

commenter expressed general support 

for extending the grounds of denial or 

revocation to expressly include 

registrations with false information or 

that are otherwise invalid. This 

commenter also expressed general 

support for the beneficiary centric 

process and the bar on multiple 

registrations submitted by related 

entities, reasoning that limiting the 

number of ‘‘false’’ registrations would 

make the registration process more 

manageable and reduce USCIS’ 

workload. 

Response: DHS agrees with these 

commenters and anticipates that this 

rule will enhance the fairness and 

integrity in the registration process. As 

explained in the NPRM, to allow 

companies to provide false information 

on the registration without consequence 

would allow them to potentially take a 

cap number for which they are 

ineligible. 

3. Other Comments and Alternatives to 

Anti-Fraud Measures Related to 

Registration 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

provided general comments on fraud in 

the H–1B registration system and 

advocated for general improvements to 

mechanisms for identifying and 

preventing abuse. Multiple commenters 

generally discussed the need for antifraud measures to address abuse in the 

registration system, stating that changes 

are needed to promote fairness and 

integrity of the H–1B visa program, 

preserve the reputation and 

transparency of the U.S. immigration 

system, protect U.S. workers, allow 

skilled foreign professionals to stay in 

the United States and contribute to the 

economy, and ensure the number of 

registrations aligns with available job 

openings and the needs of the country. 

Response: DHS remains committed to 

deterring and preventing abuse of the 

registration process and to ensuring 

only those who follow the law are 

eligible to file an H–1B cap petition. To 

this end, USCIS has already undertaken 

extensive fraud investigations, denied 

and revoked petitions accordingly, and 

continues to make law enforcement 

referrals for criminal prosecution. 

USCIS has also increased messaging 

reminding the public that at the time 

each registration is submitted, each 

prospective petitioner is required to sign 

an attestation, under penalty of perjury, 

that: all of the information contained in 

the registration submission is complete, 

true, and correct; the registration(s) 

reflects a legitimate job offer; the 

registrant intends to file a petition if 

selected; and the registrant has not 

worked with others to unfairly increase 

the chance of selection.19 In finalizing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-andfashion-models/h-1b-electronic-registration-process 

(last updated July 31, 2023). 

the proposed regulatory text at 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(10)(ii) and (11)(iii)(A)(2), DHS 

reiterates that submitting false or 

incorrect information on the 

registration, including false attestations, 

is grounds for denial or revocation of 

the approval of the petition. 

Additionally, in changing to the 

beneficiary centric registration, multiple 

frivolous registrations that may not 

represent legitimate bona fide jobs will 

no longer increase an individual’s 

chances of being selected. As such, the 

beneficiary centric selection will 

remove the incentive to have multiple 

registrations solely to increase selection 

chances. 

Comment: Many commenters voiced 

concern over frivolous registrations and 

fraud in the H–1B selection process, 

specifically the use of fraudulent 

companies to submit registrations and 

registrations from individuals without 

valid job offers. 

Many of these commenters stated that 

the proposed changes do not go far 

enough and urged USCIS to bar certain 

types of entities from submitting 

registrations and/or invalidate certain 

types of registrations prior to running 

the lottery. These commenters stated 

that USCIS should: 

• Block speculative entries from 

being considered in the selection 

process; 

• Stop individuals from using fake 

job offers to register by closing 

loopholes that allow companies to 

submit registrations for individuals 

without valid job offers; 

• Require beneficiaries working for 

consulting companies or third-party 

contractors to have valid client job 

offers; 

• Implement a verification process for 

registrants, beneficiaries, documents 

(such as passports), and/or job offers at 

registration; 

• Increase the transparency, 

oversight, reporting, and auditing of the 

selection process; 

• Ban beneficiary-owners from 

submitting registrations or limit 

registrations from beneficiary-owners to 

only those who can demonstrate 

legitimate work; and 

• Screen potential registrants for 

certain labor and employment law 

violations and disputes and prohibit any 

employer with recent or ongoing labor 

violations or disputes from participating 

in the H–1B registration process. 

Response: DHS is unable to invalidate 

or bar certain registrations, such as 

registrations that are deemed frivolous 

or submitted by certain types of 

companies, at the registration stage 

because that would require USCIS to 

adjudicate the underlying registration. 

USCIS does not adjudicate a 

registration. Further, the registration 

process is not the stage at which USCIS 

assesses the veracity of documents, the 

bona fides of the job offer, or other 

aspects of the offered position. As 

previously stated in the NPRM, 

submission of the registration is merely 

an antecedent procedural requirement 

to properly file an H–1B cap-subject 

petition and is not intended to replace 

the petition adjudication process or 

assess the eligibility of the beneficiary 

for the offered position. 88 FR 72870, 

72899 (Oct. 23, 2023). Additionally, as 

noted above, the beneficiary centric 

registration removes the incentive for a 

beneficiary to have multiple 

registrations solely to increase their 

chance of selection, which DHS 

anticipates will reduce the number of 

frivolous registrations. 

Comment: To reduce frivolous 

registrations, a few commenters 

suggested requiring additional 

information on the registration, such as: 

requiring companies to submit job offer 

letters, job descriptions, and 

documentation during registration; 

asking employers to provide full LCAs 

at the time of initial registration; and 

requiring registrants to document that it 

has a non-speculative position in a 

specialty occupation for the beneficiary 

as of the start date of the validity period 

requested on the registration. 

Response: Beyond requiring valid 

passport or travel document information 

for the beneficiary on the registration, 

DHS is not requiring additional new 

information on the registration at this 

time. DHS does not believe that 

requesting additional information about 

the beneficiary, the petitioner, or the 

underlying job offer or position, is 

necessary to effectively administer the 

registration system. Some of the 

additional information proposed by 

commenters (such as information about 

the job offer) is information that USCIS 

would require and review to determine 

eligibility in the adjudication of the H– 

1B petition. Establishing eligibility is 

not a requirement for submitting a 

registration. USCIS believes the change 

to require valid passport information or 

valid travel document information is 

sufficient to identify the beneficiary and 

reduce potential fraud and abuse of the 

registration system. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

continuing concerns with the 

registration process and advocated for 

increased penalties to prevent further 

fraud and abuse, including: 

• Review and investigate companies 

and beneficiaries who abused the H–1B 

system in previous years; 

• A ban, such as for 5 or 10 years, for 

companies and beneficiaries who 

engage in fraudulent activities; 

• A 10-year ban for beneficiaries and 

companies that do not file a petition 

after being selected; 

• Charge fines to employers found to 

have flooded the registration process 

with frivolous registrations and collect 

additional fees from registrants to pass 

a portion of these fines and additional 

fees directly to the Department of Labor 

to fund their investigation and 

enforcement activities in the H–1B 

program; 

• At the registration stage, audit all 

registrants with more than ten 

registrations and debar registrants found 

to have engaged in registration fraud; 

• Revoke H–1B visas for those who 

have previously exploited the system; 

and 

• Implementing consequences for 

companies that abuse the registration 

process and impose stricter penalties for 

those found guilty of abuse. 

Response: DHS has undertaken efforts 

to deter abuse of the registration system 

and to ensure that those who abuse the 

registration system are not eligible for 

H–1B cap petition approval. As noted 

previously, in finalizing the proposed 

regulatory text at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10)(ii) 

and (11)(iii)(A)(2), DHS reiterates that 

submitting false or incorrect information 

on the registration, including false 

attestations, is grounds for denial or 

revocation of the approval of the 

petition. If USCIS has reason to believe 

that the attestations made during 

registration are not correct, it will 

investigate the parties in question, 

including examining evidence of 

collusion and patterns of non-filing of 

petitions. Where appropriate, USCIS 

will deny or revoke the approval of 

petitions where the attestations made at 

the registration stage are found to be 

false, including making findings of 

fraud or willful material 

misrepresentation against petitioners, if 

the facts of the case support such 

findings. 

Regarding the suggestions that USCIS 

audit companies with 10 or more 

registrations, fine or ban certain 

companies from participating in the 

registration process after being found to 

have engaged in registration fraud, and 

charge additional fees to support 

investigations and enforcement 

activities, DHS declines these 

suggestions. DHS does not think that 

companies that submit more than a 

certain number of registrations for 

different beneficiaries necessarily 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7473 

20 88 FR 72870, 72889 (Oct. 23, 2023) (‘‘DHS 

continues to take steps against potential abuse and 

is in the process of investigating potential 

malfeasance and possible referrals to law 

enforcement agencies.’’). 

21 84 FR 888, 904 (Jan. 31, 2019). 

22 88 FR 402, 500–501 (Jan. 4, 2023). 

23But note that the current regulations provide 

USCIS with the discretion to suspend the H–1B 

registration process, and revert to a paper-based 

selection process, in the event it determines that the 

H–1B registration process is inoperable for any 

reason. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iv). DHS did not propose 

changes to this process, and this option remains 

available to USCIS. 

warrant investigation as many 

companies, and in particular large 

companies, may have a legitimate need 

to hire multiple H–1B beneficiaries. 

Requiring USCIS to audit companies 

that properly submit more than a certain 

number of registrations would be an 

ineffective use of resources and would 

take resources away from pursuing 

investigations that are more likely to 

uncover fraud and abuse. In addition, 

the H–1B registration process moves 

quickly and USCIS does not adjudicate 

a registration at the registration stage. 

Further, as explained in the NPRM,20

USCIS has examined patterns in the 

registration process and has investigated 

companies based on evidence 

suggesting that they were attempting to 

game the system. However, blocking or 

fining employers from participating in 

the H–1B registration process goes 

beyond what DHS proposed in the 

NPRM. This suggested alternative 

would take significant time and agency 

resources and would be insufficient to 

address the issues with the current 

registration process that DHS anticipates 

the beneficiary centric selection process 

will successfully address. In addition, as 

DHS indicated in the 2019 registration 

final rule, there may be monetary fines/ 

criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 

1001(a)(3) which apply generally to 

statements/representations made to the 

Federal Government, and registrants 

that engage in a pattern and practice of 

submitting registrations for which they 

do not file a petition following selection 

may be referred for investigation of 

potential abuse of the system.21 USCIS 

will continue to investigate and hold 

bad actors accountable to the extent of 

its authority, including making law 

enforcement referrals for criminal 

investigation. 

Finally, with respect to the suggestion 

that DHS impose an additional 

registration fee to further fund 

investigations and enforcement in the 

H–1B program, DHS did not propose to 

increase the H–1B registration fee in the 

H–1B NPRM, and any such proposal 

would need to be subject to public 

notice and comment before being 

finalized. As discussed elsewhere in 

this rule, DHS did propose to increase 

the H–1B registration fee in the Fee Rule 

NPRM.22 Any fee increase resulting 

from the Fee Rule NPRM proposal 

would be addressed in a separate final 

rule that may be issued based on that 

separate regulatory proposal. In 

addition, DHS may address any 

subsequent registration fee increase in 

future rulemaking. 

F. Other Comments Related to the 

Proposed Registration System 

1. Electronic Registration vs. PaperBased Filing 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended improving the current 

registration system and/or enhancing 

online filing capabilities instead of 

reverting to the paper-based filing 

system. An individual commenter stated 

that reverting to a paper-based system 

increases the risk of human error, makes 

it challenging to identify unique 

individuals, and increases 

vulnerabilities to manipulation and 

bribery. 

Response: DHS does not intend to 

revert to a paper-based system and 

intends to conduct the electronic 

registration process for the FY 2025 cap 

season.23 As noted in the NPRM, DHS 

considered the alternative of eliminating 

the electronic registration system and 

reverting to the paper-based filing 

system stakeholders used prior to 

implementing registration, but 

ultimately determined that the benefits 

of having an electronic registration 

system still outweigh the costs and any 

potential problems caused by frivolous 

filings. DHS proposed changes to the 

registration system to mitigate the 

potential for frivolous filings and is now 

finalizing those changes, with some 

modifications to the NPRM as discussed 

above. 

Comment: A commenter stated that if 

the new beneficiary centric registration 

process cannot be implemented in time 

for the FY 2025 cap season, ‘‘USCIS 

must indeed go back to the old system 

of paper filings to preserve its 

credibility and the credibility of its H– 

1B program as a whole.’’ 

Response: DHS does not intend to 

revert to a paper-based system and 

intends to conduct the electronic 

registration process, with beneficiary 

centric selection, for the FY 2025 cap 

season. 

2. Comments on Fees Related to 

Registration 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

discussed the current $10 registration 

fee. Several commenters stated that 

USCIS’ decision to implement a $10 

registration fee has increased fraud in 

the registration system by incentivizing 

individuals to provide false 

employment information. Another 

commenter stated that the registration 

fee of $10 renders the limited number of 

available visas insufficient to meet the 

demand at that price. Several 

commenters suggested that USCIS 

increase fees or change fee collection to 

discourage fraud, for example: 

• A fee increase of approximately 

$500 to $1,000 per registration; 

• Implementing a requirement to pay 

the Fraud Prevention and Detection fee 

of $500 along with a new filing fee of 

$215; 

• Increasing fee from ten dollars ($10) 

to $215, per the FY 2022/2023 fee rule; 

• Require a ‘‘large’’ deposit that is 

refundable; and 

• Increase registration fees to allow 

only ‘‘serious companies’’ to submit 

registrations. 

Response: DHS did not propose to 

increase registration fees in the October 

23 NPRM. Because DHS did not propose 

any changes to the H–1B registration fee 

in this rulemaking, these comments are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

However, on January 4, 2023, DHS 

published an NPRM to adjust certain 

immigration and naturalization benefit 

request fees. 88 FR 402 (Jan. 4, 2023). In 

that NPRM, DHS proposed, among other 

things, to increase the H–1B registration 

fee from $10 to $215. The comment 

period for the proposed rule closed on 

March 13, 2023. DHS received nearly 

8,000 comments in response to the 

NPRM, including comments relating to 

the proposed increase in the H–1B 

registration fee. Many of the comments 

received in response to the proposed fee 

rule relating to the proposed increase in 

the H–1B registration fee were similar to 

the comments submitted here. DHS will 

soon issue a rule to finalize its 

adjustment to immigration and 

naturalization benefit request fees, 

including the H–1B registration fee. 

Public comments on the increase in the 

H–1B registration fee can be found in 

the Fee rule NPRM rulemaking docket, 

and the responses to those comments 

will be in the Fee final rule. 

Comment: A few commenters said 

that USCIS should collect upfront all 

filing fees for the Form I–129 petition to 

deter fraudulent registrations. USCIS 

would then refund the petition filing 

fees to those whose registrations were 

not selected. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt the 

commenters’ suggestions to collect 

petition filing fees at time of 

registration. Petition filing fees will be 

collected when the petition is filed, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

24USCIS made a total selection of 124,415 in cap 

fiscal year 2021, 131,924 in cap fiscal year 2022, 

127,600 in cap fiscal year 2021, and 188,400 in cap 

fiscal year 2024. USCIS, ‘‘H–1B Electronic 

Registration Process,’’ https://www.uscis.gov/ 

working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1belectronic-registration-process (last updated July 31, 

2023). 

consistent with current practice. DHS 

does not view registration as the same 

as filing a petition because the 

submission of the registration is merely 

an antecedent procedural requirement 

to properly file an H–1B cap-subject 

petition. DHS also cannot adopt the 

suggestions to require petitioners to 

include petition filing fees at the time of 

registration due to current system 

limitations and requirements. Requiring 

USCIS to refund or hold funds would 

not be operationally efficient and would 

require USCIS to incur additional 

expenses, as USCIS incurs a cost any 

time it is required to refund a fee to an 

applicant or petitioner. 84 FR 888, 903– 

904 (Jan. 31, 2019). 

3. Other Comments and Alternatives 

Related to Registration 

Comment: A couple of commenters 

generally supported the beneficiary 

centric changes to the registration 

process but indicated that these changes 

do not adequately address the 

‘‘increasing demand for talent in the 

U.S. economy’’ or the ‘‘ever growing 

need for more H–1B talent in the U.S.’’ 

One of these commenters said that DHS 

should work with lawmakers to increase 

the annual cap. Another commenter 

indicated that the significant increase in 

registrations in the past few lotteries 

effectively resulted in those who did not 

submit multiple registrations being 

‘‘penalized for not engaging in fraud.’’ 

This commenter suggested that, in 

addition to the beneficiary-based 

selection, USCIS should consider 

temporarily increasing the number of 

registrations it selects to help 

compensate those who were unfairly 

disadvantaged during the last few 

lotteries. 

Response: The change to a beneficiary 

centric selection process is intended to 

address issues related to fairness and 

integrity of the selection process, not 

issues related to labor demand or raising 

the statutory cap. Congress set the 

current annual regular H–1B cap at 

65,000 and the annual H–1B advanced 

degree exemption at 20,000. DHS does 

not have the statutory authority to 

increase—even temporarily—these 

congressionally mandated caps. 

Regarding the suggestion to 

temporarily raise the number of selected 

registrations, USCIS already takes into 

account historical data related to 

approvals, denials, revocations, and 

other relevant factors when calculating 

the number of registrations projected as 

needed to meet the statutory numerical 

allocations; and, if necessary, USCIS 

may increase those numbers throughout 

the fiscal year. See 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(E). In fact, USCIS has 

generally increased the total number of 

registrations it has selected for each 

fiscal year since the implementation of 

the registration system.24 Therefore, 

DHS declines to make any changes as a 

result of these comments but will 

continue to rely on data and all relevant 

information when projecting how many 

registrations to select toward the 65,000 

statutory numerical limitation and the 

20,000 advanced degree exemption. 

Comment: A few commenters offered 

suggestions for alternative forms of 

relief for F–1 students or other 

prospective beneficiaries who were 

disadvantaged in prior lotteries. 

Without elaborating, a commenter stated 

that the NPRM failed to address the 

concerns of F–1 students impacted by 

fraudulent activities in the past 3 years 

and that DHS should provide 

‘‘alternative relief options for genuine 

candidates facing uncertainties.’’ 

Another commenter suggested that DHS 

should offer an employment 

authorization document ‘‘as a form of 

compensation’’ for individuals who 

were not selected following H–1B 

registration periods in prior years. 

While not specific to F–1 students who 

were disadvantaged in prior lotteries, a 

commenter requested DHS to consider 

extending cap-gap to all F–1 OPT or 

STEM OPT students registered in the H– 

1B lottery until USCIS concludes the 

lottery selection process for the fiscal 

year. 

Response: As previously noted, 

changing the registration process to a 

beneficiary centric system is intended to 

address issues related to fairness and 

integrity of the selection process. DHS is 

not attempting to provide relief or 

compensate individuals who were not 

selected in previous registration periods 

through this regulatory action and 

declines to adopt these suggestions. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

suggested that DHS remove the random 

selection process altogether and instead 

suggested that the Department select 

registrations based on particular 

characteristics. These commenters 

suggested that the Department: 

• Replace the random selection 

process with a merit-based system; 

• Replace the random selection 

process with a ‘‘percentage auction’’ in 

which employers would bid for H–1B 

visas; 

• Select registrations based on 

company needs and individual skills; 

• Implement a points-based system in 

place of a random selection system; 

• Implement a wage-level/wage or 

salary amount/income-based 

prioritization system, including: 

Æ Wage-based allocation process for 

employers paying the highest wages/ 

salaries for non-speculative jobs or 

having terms and conditions of 

employment set through a collective 

bargaining agreement; 

Æ Select registrations based on the 

highest salaries; 

Æ Change the random selection 

process to an income-based system, and 

remove the lower income levels from 

the system to prevent outsourcing and 

displacement of U.S. talent; 

Æ Automatically select a registration 

for a job offer above a certain salary; 

• Select registrations based on 

‘‘virtuous employer behavior’’, such as 

hiring graduates of U.S. universities, 

sponsoring H–1B workers for 

permanence, or having terms and 

conditions of employment set through a 

collective bargaining agreement; 

• Introduce degree-based 

categorizations in the selection system, 

reasoning that such an approach would 

allow more advanced degrees, like 

Ph.D.s, to have a unique category to 

align with the specialty-based nature of 

H–1B visas; 

• Work with the Department of Labor 

(DOL) to identify industries with heavy 

demand for workers and give those 

industries priority; 

• Provide priority status for U.S. 

master’s students, Ph.D. graduates, and 

beneficiaries with greater than 10 years 

of work experience; 

• Prioritize registrations based on the 

duration of the beneficiary’s work 

experience or active full-time 

employment; 

• Increase the chances of selection for 

individuals residing in the United States 

relative to those who are outside the 

country, individuals residing in the 

United States legally, international 

students, or U.S. graduates in the United 

States; and 

• Revise the registration system so 

that it rewards highly motivated 

individuals who will make ‘‘genuine 

contributions’’ and contribute to the 

U.S. economy. 

Response: In the NPRM, DHS did not 

propose to prioritize or give preference 

to any registration based on skills, 

salaries/wages, education, experience, 

industry, or any other new criteria. 

Rather, the goal of this rule is to provide 

each unique beneficiary with an equal 

chance of selection. Selecting based on 

specific characteristics would not 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7475 

25See USCIS, ‘‘H –1B Petitions by Gender and 

Country of Birth Fiscal Year; 2019,’’ https://

www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/h1b-petitions-by-gender-country-of-birth-fy2019.pdf 

(Jan. 21, 2020). 

achieve this goal. DHS declines to 

implement any of these suggestions. 

Comment: A commenter claimed that 

‘‘the names of people who are not 

selected seems to be clustered,’’ the 

random selection process can be biased 

and can ‘‘screen out people,’’ and that 

‘‘numbers generated by computers are 

skewed and prefer specific numbers.’’ 

Response: DHS disagrees with this 

comment. If USCIS determines it has 

received enough electronic registrations 

at the close of the initial registration 

period to reach the applicable numerical 

allocation(s), USCIS will randomly 

select from among the registrations 

properly submitted during the initial 

registration period the number of 

registrations deemed necessary to meet 

the applicable allocation. As the 

selection is done via a random selection 

algorithm, there is no bias or preference 

for certain registrants over others. The 

commenter did not provide evidence or 

cite to data to support their claim that 

the selection algorithm is biased. As 

noted above, DHS anticipates that the 

changes made with this rulemaking will 

reduce the potential for gaming the 

registration process and help ensure that 

each beneficiary has the same chance of 

being selected. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested a ‘‘cap,’’ ‘‘quota,’’ or other 

restrictions on registrations for 

beneficiaries from certain countries, 

remarking that the current registration 

system has seen disproportionate 

representation from nationals of certain 

countries. A commenter remarked that 

the proposed changes would allow for 

fairer opportunities for beneficiaries of 

various nationalities, rather than 

beneficiaries from certain countries— 

the commenter cited USCIS H–1B 

petition data from 2019 indicating that 

74.5 percent of H–1B petition 

beneficiaries were from India.25

Response: DHS declines to adopt a 

cap, quota, or other restriction on 

registrations based on a beneficiary’s 

nationality. DHS disagrees with the 

assertion that a beneficiary’s nationality 

has any relevance to their chance of 

selection under the registration-based 

selection process or the beneficiary 

centric selection process. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

DHS to allow cap-exempt H–1B holders 

to transition to cap-subject employers 

without participating in the registration 

selection process, stating that the 

current system imposes burdens on both 

the employee and the prospective 

employer but also opens the door to 

potential H–1B program abuses and 

fraudulent activities, especially by 

unscrupulous companies that exploit 

the system through multiple filings and 

manipulative practices. 

Response: DHS declines to adopt this 

suggestion. The NPRM did not propose 

to address the issue of cap-exempt H– 

1B workers transitioning to cap-subject 

employers. Allowing a cap-exempt H– 

1B worker to transfer to a cap-subject 

employer without participating in the 

registration selection process would 

violate 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(F)(5) 

which the NPRM did not propose to 

change, as well as INA sec. 214(g)(6), 8 

U.S.C. 1184(g)(6). 

Comment: A commenter requested 

DHS to allow a beneficiary to view the 

case status of an H–1B registration filed 

by their employer, stating that this will 

allow a beneficiary to verify the 

information provided about them by a 

prospective employer. Another 

commenter suggested that registrations 

should be submitted by the beneficiaries 

rather than the employers, so that the 

beneficiaries can review the information 

first-hand, or alternatively that the 

beneficiaries co-file with the employer. 

Conversely, another commenter 

indicated that they appreciate that 

USCIS did not change the system to 

allow beneficiaries to submit their own 

registrations, noting that it could result 

in many offshore beneficiaries 

submitting registrations in hopes of 

obtaining a job offer after selection. 

Response: DHS agrees with the 

commenter who supported DHS not 

changing who can submit a registration 

to include beneficiaries. DHS will not 

implement a change to allow 

beneficiaries to submit H–1B 

registrations. The registration process 

will continue to be employer-based to 

align with the petition process. In 

addition, while DHS incorporated a call 

for preliminary feedback on the 

beneficiary notification concept, 

including the ability to access case 

status information, DHS is not yet in the 

position to implement the commenter’s 

suggestions. However, these suggestions 

will be considered for future action. 

Comment: A commenter encouraged 

DHS to work with the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury to increase the Pay.gov 

daily credit card transaction limit, 

stating that the current relatively low 

limit creates considerable challenges for 

companies submitting a large volume of 

registrations, and eliminating or 

significantly increasing the transaction 

limit would contribute to the NPRM 

goals of modernizing the program. 

Response: Transaction limits in 

Pay.gov are established by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury (‘‘Treasury) 

and are outside DHS’s regulatory 

authority. Therefore, DHS did not 

propose to amend these limits in the 

NPRM and will not make any changes 

in that regard in this final rule. 

However, in past years, USCIS actively 

worked with Treasury outside of this 

rulemaking to waive/increase 

transaction limits affecting the H–1B 

registration process and now intends to 

request an exemption under recently 

issued Treasury guidance so that it may 

process credit card transactions in 

excess of the current daily and monthly 

credit card transaction limits. USCIS is 

moving forward with requesting 

approval from Treasury to increase the 

transaction limits from $24,999 to 

$39,999, and every effort will be made 

to obtain approval for the increase in 

time for the initial registration period in 

March of 2024. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended changes to the myUSCIS 

portal so that when it sends the 

petitioner or an attorney a notification 

after one or more selections occur, the 

notification will identify the specific 

individuals who were selected. 

Response: DHS understands that the 

commenter is asking USCIS to enhance 

automatic account update alerts to 

explicitly state what has changed in the 

online account, such as the specific 

registrant(s) and/or beneficiary(ies) 

impacted, when a selection has been 

made. The intent of these alerts is to 

prompt each online account holder to 

log into their account to see the details 

of the case update and obtain specific 

information on the pending case. 

Because each matter is case specific, the 

details in the issued agency notices is 

important and carefully crafted to 

present actionable information as well 

as protect personally identifiable 

information. For H–1B registrations, the 

selection notices posted to the online 

account present the names of the 

selected beneficiary and of the 

prospective petitioner, dates of births, 

contact information, and tax 

identification numbers. In contrast, the 

automated messages sent to account 

holders’ email or by SMS text, as 

selected by the account holder, are 

intentionally kept general to protect 

privacy and prevent any inadvertent 

disclosure of personal information. 

DHS, therefore, declines to adopt the 

commenter’s suggestion. 

Comment: As a way to improve 

accountability and program integrity, a 

commenter recommended DHS provide 

public disclosure of ‘‘employer and 

recruiter information at the initial 

registration stage’’ and create ‘‘an active 

mechanism for public objection and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

26See USCIS, ‘‘H–1B Employer Data Hub,’’ 

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/h1b-employer-data-hub (last visited Jan. 2, 2024). 

27See USCIS, ‘‘Combatting Fraud and Abuse in 

the H–1B Visa Program,’’ https://www.uscis.gov/ 

scams-fraud-and-misconduct/report-fraud/ 

combating-fraud-and-abuse-in-the-h-1b-visaprogram#H1B%20Fraud%20and%20Abuse%20Indicators. 

Under the heading ‘‘Reporting Suspected H–1B 

Fraud or Abuse,’’ USCIS states: ‘‘Anyone (including 

American workers and H–1B workers who suspect 

they or others may be the victim of H–1B fraud or 

abuse) can send us tips, alleged violations, and 

other relevant information about potential fraud or 

abuse using our online tip form.’’ (Last visited Jan. 

2, 2024.) 

28As proposed, and made final in this rule, the 

denial provision in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10)(ii) is also 

being expanded to cover false statements on the 

Department of Labor’s TLC (applicable to H–2A and 

H–2B programs), and the LCA, and the revocation 

provision in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11)(iii) is being 

expanded to include revocation based on false 

statements made in the LCA. As explained in the 

NPRM, this would codify DHS’s current practices, 

as the LCA is incorporated into and considered part 

of the H–1B petition, just like the TLC is 

incorporated into and considered part of the H–2A 

or H–2B petition. See 88 FR 72870, 72903 (Oct. 23, 

2023). These changes to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(10) and 

(h)(11) are independent from the other changes 

made in this final rule. 

comment that will be taken into 

consideration by those ultimately 

certifying H–1B petitions.’’ Another 

commenter stated DHS should disclose 

to the public the names of the 

companies and information about their 

use or misuse of the visa program. 

Response: DHS will not implement 

these suggestions at this time. As stated 

above, submission of the registration is 

merely an antecedent procedural 

requirement to properly file an H–1B 

cap-subject petition and is not intended 

to replace the petition adjudication 

process or assess the eligibility of the 

beneficiary for the offered position. 

Therefore, because registration 

submission and selection is not an 

adjudication, USCIS would not have a 

mechanism or need to consider public 

objection and comment in the context of 

registration selection. The goal of this 

rule is to provide each unique 

beneficiary with an equal chance of 

selection. It is not clear from the 

comment how creating a system of 

public disclosure and mechanisms for 

public objection to registrations would 

help to achieve this goal. Finally, with 

respect to the suggestion that DHS 

disclose to the public the names of the 

companies and information about how 

they are using the program, it is not 

clear from the comment whether this 

suggestion is limited to the H–1B 

registration process or the H–1B 

program more broadly. It is also not 

clear what the commenter meant by 

‘‘how companies are using the visa 

program.’’ DHS notes that it already has 

an H–1B Data Hub 26 where members of 

the public can search H–1B program 

information, including employer names, 

NAICS codes, and geographic 

information to better understand how 

the H–1B program is being used, and 

that third parties may already report 

alleged fraud or abuse in the H–1B 

program through an online tip form.27

As such, DHS will not adopt the 

suggestions at this time. 

IV. Severability 

The provisions of this rule are 

severable from each other such that if a 

court were to hold that any provision is 

invalid or unenforceable as to a 

particular person or circumstance, the 

rule would remain in effect as to any 

other person or circumstance. 

Specifically, DHS intends that the 

provisions governing the beneficiary 

centric selection process in paragraph 

(h)(8)(iii), the elimination of the 

requirement that the requested start date 

for the beneficiary be the first day for 

the applicable fiscal year in 

(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4), and the provisions 

governing the denial or revocation of H– 

1B petitions based on inaccurate, 

fraudulent, or misrepresented material 

facts in the H–1B petition, H–1B 

registration, or LCA, or in the case of H– 

2A and H–2B petitions, the TLC, in 

paragraphs (h)(10)(ii) and (iii), and 

(h)(11)(iii), respectively, published in 

this rule to be severable from one 

another. As explained throughout this 

preamble, the beneficiary centric 

selection process is intended to ensure 

the fairness in the H–1B selection 

process by evening out the odds for the 

selection of H–1B beneficiaries by 

significantly reducing incentives for the 

submission of multiple non-meritorious 

registrations for the same beneficiary. 

Further the removal of the requirement 

that a requested start date for the 

beneficiary be the first day of the 

applicable fiscal year (i.e., October 1st) 

is also a stand-alone provision that can 

operate independently of the other 

provisions of this rule. Codifying the 

authority for USCIS to deny or revoke 

petitions based on false statements 

made on the H–1B registration will 

further ensure that the H–1B selection 

process is based on information that is 

true and correct.28 While these 

provisions, taken together, will provide 

maximum benefit with respect to 

making the H–1B registration and cap 

selection process more equitable while 

ensuring the integrity of the H–1B 

registration process and H–1B program 

more broadly, the beneficiary centric 

selection process provisions are not 

interdependent with the provisions 

providing for denial and revocation of 

H–1B petitions, and are able to operate 

separately. Similarly, the expansion of 

the denial provision to cover false 

statements on the TLC relates to the 

integrity of the H–2A and H–2B 

programs and is independent from and 

severable from the H–1B program, and 

the H–1B beneficiary centric selection 

process. 

V. Statutory and Regulatory 

Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive 

Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) 

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) direct agencies to 

assess the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if a 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has designated this final rule a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, 

as amended by Executive Order 14094, 

but it is not significant under section 

3(f)(1) because its annual effects on the 

economy do not exceed $200 million in 

any year of the analysis. Accordingly, 

OMB has reviewed this final rule. 

Summary 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

amend the regulations relating to the H– 

1B registration selection process. 

Through this rule, DHS is implementing 

a beneficiary centric selection process. 

Instead of selecting by registration, 

USCIS will select registrations by 

unique beneficiary. Each unique 

beneficiary who has a registration 

submitted on their behalf will be 

entered into the selection process once, 

regardless of how many registrations are 

submitted on their behalf. If a 

beneficiary is selected, each registrant 

that submitted a registration on that 

beneficiary’s behalf will be notified of 

selection and will be eligible to file a 

petition on that beneficiary’s behalf 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7477 

during the applicable petition filing 

period. 

For the 10-year period of analysis of 

the final rule DHS estimates the 

annualized net cost savings of this 

rulemaking will be $2,199,374 

annualized at 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Table 1 provides a more detailed 

summary of the final rule provisions 

and their impacts. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE

Final rule provisions Description of final change to provisions Estimated costs/transfers of provisions Estimated benefits of provisions 

1. Start Date Flexibility for 

Certain Cap-Subject H– 

1B Petitions.

b DHS is eliminating all the text currently at 

8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4), which relates 

to a limitation on the requested start date.

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

b Reduced confusion regarding 

which start date they must put 

on an H–1B petition 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 

2. Additional Time Burden 

for the H–1B Registration 

System.

b Due to changes in the instructions, adding 

clarifying language regarding the denial or 

revocation of approved H–1B petitions, 

adding information collection elements related to the beneficiary centric registration 

selection process, namely the collection of 

passport or travel document information 

and related instructional language, and 

verifying such information before submitting a registration, this final rule will increase the burden per response by 5 minutes.

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b DHS estimates that the additional time to 

complete and submit the H–1B registration 

will cost $2,376,458 annually. 

b Although many DHS rulemakings include 

monetized or unquantified familiarization 

costs, DHS believes the addition of passport or travel document information will 

have no likely consequence or add familiarization costs to existing burdens to review instructions, gather required documentation and complete and submit the request. 

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

3. Beneficiary Centric Selection.b Under the new rule, each unique individual who has a registration submitted on 

their behalf will be entered into the selection process once, regardless of the number of registrations submitted on their behalf. By selecting by a unique beneficiary, 

DHS will better ensure that each individual 

has the same chance of being selected, 

regardless of how many registrations were 

submitted on their behalf.

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b DHS estimates the total annual cost savings to petitioners will be $3,840,822 for 

the registrants’ cost of time 

b DHS estimates that there will be 73,501 

fewer registrations due to this change, resulting in a $735,010 cost savings to petitioners based on those petitioners no 

longer needing to pay the $10 registration 

fee. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

While the final passport or travel document 

requirement could impact individuals who 

do not yet hold a valid passport or travel 

document at the time of registration, DHS 

has determined the described benefits of 

program integrity outweigh any additional 

burden to prospective beneficiaries. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners/Beneficiaries— 

b DHS believes that changing 

how USCIS conducts the selection process to select by 

unique beneficiaries instead of 

registrations will give each 

unique beneficiary an equal 

chance at selection and will reduce the advantage that beneficiaries with multiple registrations submitted on their behalf 

have over beneficiaries with a 

single registration submitted on 

their behalf. 

b Selected beneficiaries with 

more than one legitimate registration would enjoy improved 

flexibility, and greater autonomy in selecting their employer. 

b DHS cannot forecast with certainty a reduction in administrative burdens resulting from 

fewer selection rounds. However, the beneficiary centric 

selection process may reduce 

the likelihood that USCIS will 

need to run the selection process more than once in a fiscal 

year and may achieve the multiple benefits discussed by the 

commenters. DHS also acknowledges the comments that 

running multiple selection 

rounds can negatively affect 

beneficiaries who are already 

in the United States and may 

not be able to stay through 

multiple selection rounds, and 

notes that the beneficiary centric registration process may 

help potential beneficiaries in 

this manner as well. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

29OMB, Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_

drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last viewed 

June 1, 2021). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS OF THE FINAL RULE—Continued 

Final rule provisions Description of final change to provisions Estimated costs/transfers of provisions Estimated benefits of provisions 

4. Registrations with False 

Information or that are 

Otherwise Invalid.

b DHS is codifying its authority to deny or 

revoke a petition on the basis that the 

statement of facts on the underlying registration was not true and correct, or was 

inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a 

material fact.

b Additionally, DHS is codifying its authority 

to deny or revoke the approval of an H–1B 

petition if it determines that the fee associated with the registration is declined, not 

reconciled, disputed, or otherwise invalid 

after submission..

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

b DHS anticipates that USCIS adjudicators 

may issue more RFEs and NOIDs related 

to registrations with false information under 

this final rule, which will increase the burden on petitioners and adjudicators 

b USCIS may deny or revoke the approval 

of any petition filed for the beneficiary 

based on those registrations with false information or if USCIS determines fee payment is declined, not reconciled, disputed, 

or otherwise invalid after submission. 

Quantitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b None. 

Qualitative: 

Petitioners— 

b None. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b The authority to deny or revoke a petition on the basis 

that the statement of facts on 

the underlying registration was 

not true and correct, or was inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact will 

lead to improved program integrity for USCIS. 

DHS/USCIS— 

b DHS will need to spend time issuing 

RFEs and NOIDs related to registrations 

with false information. 

b The authority to deny or revoke due to failed or incomplete payment mitigates the incentive to submit payment only 

upon selection of registrations 

and will lead to improved program integrity for USCIS. 

In addition to the impacts 

summarized above, and as required by 

OMB Circular A–4, Table 2 presents the 

prepared accounting statement showing 

the costs and benefits that will result in 

this final rule.29

TABLE 2—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

[$ millions, FY 2022] 

Time period: FY 2023 through FY 2032 

Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation 

Benefits 

Monetized Benefits ......................... N/A Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA). 

Annualized quantified, but 

unmonetized, benefits.

N/A ................................................ N/A ................................................ N/A ................................................ RIA. 

Unquantified Benefits ...................... The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve the regulations relating to the H–1B registration selection process. Through this rule, DHS is implementing a beneficiary centric selection process for H–1B registrations. 

Instead of selecting by registration, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will select registrations by unique beneficiary. Each unique beneficiary who has a registration submitted on their behalf will be 

entered into the selection process once, regardless of how many registrations are submitted on their behalf. 

If a beneficiary is selected, each registrant that submitted a registration on that beneficiary’s behalf will be 

notified of selection and will be eligible to file a petition on that beneficiary’s behalf during the applicable petition filing period. The beneficiary centric selection process for H–1B registrations will reduce the potential 

for gaming the process to increase chances for selection and help ensure that each beneficiary has the 

same chance of being selected, regardless of how many registrations are submitted on their behalf. 

RIA. 

Costs 

Annualized monetized costs (7%) .. ¥$2.2 RIA. 

Annualized monetized costs (3%) .. ¥$2.2 

Annualized quantified, but 

unmonetized, costs.

N/A 

Qualitative (unquantified) costs ...... DHS expects program participants to comply with program requirements, and notes those that do not comply with program requirements could experience significant impacts due to this rule. DHS expects that the 

final rule prevents registrations with false information from taking a cap number for which they are ineligible. 

If registrants provide false information to gain an unfair advantage under the beneficiary centric selection 

process, DHS anticipates that USCIS adjudicators may issue more RFEs and NOIDs related to registrations 

with false information under this final rule, which will increase the burden on petitioners and adjudicators. 

USCIS may deny or revoke the approval of any petition filed for the beneficiary based on those registrations 

with false information. 

RIA. 

Transfers 

Annualized monetized transfers 

(7%).

N/A 

Annualized monetized transfers 

(3%).

N/A 

From whom to whom? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7479 

TABLE 2—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued 

[$ millions, FY 2022] 

Time period: FY 2023 through FY 2032 

Category Primary estimate Minimum estimate Maximum estimate Source citation 

From whom to whom? 

Miscellaneous analyses/category Effects Source citation. 

Effects on State, local, or tribal 

governments.

None RIA. 

Effects on small businesses ........... None RIA. 

Effects on wages ............................ None None. 

Effects on growth ............................ The beneficiary centric selection process will likely increase fairness in the selection process, as well as enhance the integrity of the selection process overall. DHS anticipates that this change will also enhance 

transparency and predictability in the selection process by structurally limiting the potential for bad actors to 

game the system. As noted in the NPRM, DHS is aware that, under the registration-based selection process, an individual’s chance of selection with a single registration is lower compared to beneficiaries who 

have multiple registrations submitted on their behalf and is optimistic that the new beneficiary centric selection system will increase fairness and help restore trust in the system. 

None. 

Background 

Through this final rule, DHS is 

finalizing certain provisions relating to 

the beneficiary centric selection process 

for H–1B registrations, start date 

flexibility for certain H–1B cap-subject 

petitions, and integrity measures related 

to registration. 

Costs, Transfers, and Benefits of the 

Final Rule 

(1) Start Date Flexibility for Certain H– 

1B Cap-Subject Petitions 

DHS is eliminating all the text 

currently at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4), 

which relates to a limitation on the 

requested start date, because the current 

regulatory language creates confusion 

when the petition filing period extends 

beyond October 1 of the applicable 

fiscal year. The removal of this text will 

provide clarity and flexibility to 

employers with regard to the start date 

listed on H–1B cap-subject petitions, 

consistent with existing USCIS practice. 

This clarity may help petitioners by 

reducing confusion as to what start date 

they have to put on the petition. 

In 2020, USCIS implemented the first 

electronic registration process for the FY 

2021 H–1B cap. In that year, and for 

each subsequent fiscal year, prospective 

petitioners seeking to file H–1B capsubject petitions (including for 

beneficiaries eligible for the advanced 

degree exemption) were required to first 

electronically register and pay the 

associated H–1B registration fee for each 

prospective beneficiary. Table 3 shows 

the number of cap-subject registrations 

received and selected by USCIS during 

Cap Year 2021 through FY 2023. Based 

on the 3-year annual average DHS 

estimates that 127,980 registrations are 

selected each year. DHS cannot estimate 

the number of petitioners that will 

benefit from this clarification to the start 

date on their petition because USCIS 

does not currently reject or deny 

petitions solely due to the start date not 

being October 1 of the applicable fiscal 

year. 

TABLE 3—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT REGISTRATIONS RECEIVED AND SELECTED BY USCIS 

[Cap Year 2021 through FY 2023] 

Cap year 

Total number of 

registrations 

received 

Eligible registrations 

for beneficiaries with 

no other eligible 

registrations 

Eligible registrations 

for beneficiaries with 

multiple eligible 

registrations 

Selections 

2021 ......................................................... 274,237 241,299 28,125 124,415 

2022 ......................................................... 308,613 211,304 90,143 131,924 

2023 ......................................................... 483,927 309,241 165,180 127,600 

3-Year Total ...................................... 1,066,777 761,844 283,448 383,939 

3-Year Average ................................ 355,592 253,948 94,483 127,980 

Source: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1b-electronicregistration-process (Mar. 30, 2023). 

In FY 2024 there were 780,884 

registrations received, which was a large 

increase from previous years shown in 

Table 4. Of those registrations, 758,994 

were eligible and 350,103 were eligible 

registrations for beneficiaries with no 

other eligible registrations, and 408,891 

were eligible registrations for 

beneficiaries with multiple eligible 

registrations. Table 4 shows the 4-year 

annual average including FY 2024. The 

FY 2024 data shows continued growth 

in eligible registrations for beneficiaries 

both with no other eligible registrations 

and those with multiple registrations. 

While Tables 3 and 4 suggest that 

growth in multiple registrations may 

continue in response to declining odds 

of random selection in the lottery, DHS 

cannot accurately project out what the 

share of future registrations will be for 

beneficiaries with multiple registrations 

nor how many registrations might 

ultimately be submitted for those 

beneficiaries. Furthermore, Table 3 

shows that the number of eligible 

registrations for beneficiaries with no 

other eligible registrations has 

continued to grow for reasons unrelated 

to the growth in multiple registrations. 

Although past growth is not indicative 

of future trend, it is evident from the 

analysis presented in the NPRM and 

this Final Rule that should these trends 

continue, the cost savings estimated in 

this analysis would only grow larger, 

and consequently, DHS continues to use 

the 3-year annual (FY21 through FY23) 

average as the appropriate estimated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

I I 
7480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

30See ‘‘Registration Requirement for Petitioners 

Seeking To File H–1B Petitions on Behalf of CapSubject Aliens,’’ 84 FR 888 (Jan. 31, 2019). 

population for this final rule. While 

DHS considered the FY2024 data 

separately, we are not adjusting the RIA 

to include FY2024 because this mostrecent registration data lacks necessary 

information on the verified total number 

of unique beneficiaries with 

registrations submitted on their behalf 

which this RIA uses to estimate impacts 

of the beneficiary centric selection 

process. DHS incorporated the FY 2024 

data into this final rule once partial data 

became available to show the increase 

in the total number of registrations 

received since FY2023. Table 4 shows 

the 4-year annual average including FY 

2024, this annual average is around 

106,323 higher than the 3-year annual 

average shown in Table 3 even though 

the increase from FY 2023 to FY 2024 

was an increase of 296,957. 

TABLE 4—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT REGISTRATIONS RECEIVED AND SELECTED BY USCIS 

[Cap year 2021 through Cap year 2024] 

Cap year 

Total number of 

registrations 

received 

Eligible registrations 

for beneficiaries with 

no other eligible 

registrations 

Eligible registrations 

for beneficiaries with 

multiple eligible 

registrations 

Selections 

2021 ......................................................... 274,237 241,299 28,125 124,415 

2022 ......................................................... 308,613 211,304 90,143 131,924 

2023 ......................................................... 483,927 309,241 165,180 127,600 

2024 ......................................................... 780,884 350,103 408,891 188,400 

Total .................................................. 1,847,661 1,111,947 692,339 572,339 

Average ............................................ 461,915 277,987 173,085 143,085 

Source: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1b-electronicregistration-process (Mar. 30, 2023). 

(2) The H–1B Registration System 

Through issuance of a final rule in 

2019, Registration Requirement for 

Petitioners Seeking To File H–1B 

Petitions on Behalf of Cap-Subject 

Aliens,30 DHS developed a new way to 

administer the H–1B cap selection 

process to streamline processing and 

provide overall cost savings to 

employers seeking to file H–1B capsubject petitions. In 2020, USCIS 

implemented the first electronic 

registration process for the FY 2021 H– 

1B cap. In that year, and for each 

subsequent fiscal year, prospective 

petitioners seeking to file H–1B capsubject petitions (including for 

beneficiaries eligible for the advanced 

degree exemption) were required to first 

electronically register and pay the 

associated H–1B registration fee for each 

prospective beneficiary. When 

registration is required, an H–1B capsubject petition is not eligible for filing 

unless it is based on a selected 

registration that was properly submitted 

by the prospective petitioner, or their 

representative, for the beneficiary. 

Table 3 shows the number of cap 

registration receipts by year, as well as 

the number of registrations that were 

selected to file Form I–129 H–1B 

petitions. The number of registrations 

has increased over the past 3 years. DHS 

believes that this increase is partially 

due to the increase in multiple 

companies submitting registrations for 

the same beneficiary. USCIS received a 

low of 274,237 H–1B registrations for 

cap year 2021, and a high of 483,927 H– 

1B registrations for cap year 2023. 

DHS estimates the current public 

reporting time burden for an H–1B 

registration is 31 minutes (0.5167 

hours), which includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, gathering the 

required information, and submitting 

the registration. 

The number of Form G–28 

submissions allows USCIS to estimate 

the number of H–1B registrations that an 

attorney or accredited representative 

submits and thus estimate the 

opportunity costs of time for an attorney 

or accredited representative to submit a 

registration. Table 5 shows the number 

of registrations received with and 

without Form G–28. USCIS received a 

low of 148,964 registrations with Form 

G–28 in cap year 2022, and a high of 

207,053 registrations with Form G–28 in 

cap year 2023. Based on a 3-year annual 

average, DHS estimates the annual 

average receipts of registrations to be 

171,330 with 48 percent of registrations 

submitted by an attorney or accredited 

representative. 

TABLE 5—TOTAL FORM I–129 H–1B REGISTRATIONS WITH AND WITHOUT FORM G–28 

[Cap year 2021 through Cap year 2023] 

Cap year 

Total number of 

H–1B 

registrations 

submitted 

without form 

G–28 

Total number of 

H–1B 

registrations 

submitted with 

form G–28 

Total of H–1B 

registration 

submitted 

Percentage of 

H–1B 

registrations 

submitted with 

form G–28 

(%) 

2021 ......................................................................................... 116,264 157,973 274,237 58 

2022 ......................................................................................... 159,649 148,964 308,613 48 

2023 ......................................................................................... 276,874 207,053 483,927 43 

3-Year Total ...................................................................... 552,787 513,990 1,066,777 48 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7481 

31USCIS limited its analysis to HR specialists, inhouse lawyers, and outsourced lawyers to present 

estimated costs. However, USCIS understands that 

not all entities employ individuals with these 

occupations and, therefore, recognizes equivalent 

occupations may also prepare and file these 

petitions or registrations. 

32See BLS, ‘‘Occupational Employment and 

Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and 

Wages, May 2022, 13–1071 Human Resources 

Specialists,’’ https://www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/ 

oes131071.htm (last visited May 11, 2023). 

33See BLS, ‘‘Occupational Employment and 

Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and 

Wages, May 2022, 23–1011 Lawyers,’’ https://

www.bls.gov/oes/2022/may/oes231011.htm (last 

visited May. 11, 2023). 

34The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as 

follows: (Total Employee Compensation per hour)/ 

(Wages and Salaries per hour) ($42.48 Total 

Employee Compensation per hour)/($29.32 Wages 

and Salaries per hour) = 1.44884 = 1.45 (rounded). 

See BLS, Economic News Release, ‘‘Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation’’ (Dec. 2022), Table 1. 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by 

ownership’’ (Dec. 2022), https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/archives/ecec_03172023.htm (last 

visited Mar. 21, 2023). The Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation measures the average cost 

to employers for wages and salaries and benefits per 

employee hour worked. 

35Calculation: $35.13 * 1.45 = $50.94 total wage 

rate for HR specialist. 

36Calculation: $78.74 * 1.45 = $114.17 total wage 

rate for in-house lawyer. 

37 DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), ‘‘Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who 

Receive a No-Match Letter,’’ used a multiplier of 2.5 

to convert in-house attorney wages to the cost of 

outsourced attorney based on information received 

in public comment to that rule. We believe the 

explanation and methodology used in the Final 

Small Entity Impact Analysis for that rule remains 

sound for using 2.5 as a multiplier for outsourced 

labor wages in this final rule, see https://

www.regulations.gov/document/ICEB-2006-0004- 

0922, at page G–4. 

38Calculation: $78.74 * 2.5 = $196.85 total wage 

rate for an outsourced lawyer. 

TABLE 5—TOTAL FORM I–129 H–1B REGISTRATIONS WITH AND WITHOUT FORM G–28—Continued 

[Cap year 2021 through Cap year 2023] 

Cap year 

Total number of 

H–1B 

registrations 

submitted 

without form 

G–28 

Total number of 

H–1B 

registrations 

submitted with 

form G–28 

Total of H–1B 

registration 

submitted 

Percentage of 

H–1B 

registrations 

submitted with 

form G–28 

(%) 

3-Year Average ................................................................ 184,262 171,330 355,592 48 

Source: USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, PRD, CLAIMS3 and ELIS databases, Mar. 30, 2023. 

Of the 355,592 total average of H–1B 

registrations submitted, DHS estimates 

that an annual average of 282,091 

unique beneficiaries with registrations 

will now see increase to the opportunity 

cost of time completing and submitting 

an H–1B registration. Of those 282,091 

registrations, DHS estimated that an 

attorney or accredited representative 

submitted 48 percent of registrations 

and an HR representative submitted the 

remaining 52 percent shown in Table 5. 

TABLE 6—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT REGISTRATIONS RECEIVED BY USCIS FOR UNIQUE BENEFICIARIES

[Cap year 2021 through 2023] 

Cap year Total 

registrations 

Total number of 

registrations 

submitted for 

beneficiaries 

with multiple 

registrations 

Total number of 

registrations 

submitted for 

beneficiaries 

with a single 

registration 

Total number of 

unique 

beneficiaries 

with 

registrations 

submitted on 

their behalf 

% of total 

registrations 

submitted for 

beneficiaries 

with a single 

registration 

2021 ............................................. 274,237 34,349 239,888 253,331 87 

2022 ............................................. 308,613 98,547 210,066 235,720 68 

2023 ............................................. 483,927 176,444 307,483 357,222 64 

3-year Total ........................... 1,066,777 309,340 757,437 846,273 71 

3-year Annual Average ......... 355,592 103,113 252,479 282,091 71 

Source: USCIS Office of Performance and Quality. 

In order to estimate the opportunity 

costs of time for completing and 

submitting an H–1B registration DHS 

assumes that a registrant will use an HR 

specialist, an in-house lawyer, or an 

outsourced lawyer to prepare an H–1B 

registration.31 DHS uses the mean 

hourly wage of $35.13 for HR specialists 

to estimate the opportunity cost of the 

time for preparing and submitting the 

H–1B registration.32 Additionally, DHS 

uses the mean hourly wage of $78.74 for 

in-house lawyers to estimate the 

opportunity cost of the time for 

preparing and submitting the H–1B 

registration.33

DHS accounts for worker benefits 

when estimating the total costs of 

compensation by calculating a benefitsto-wage multiplier using the BLS report 

detailing the average employer costs for 

employee compensation for all civilian 

workers in major occupational groups 

and industries. DHS estimates that the 

benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.45 and, 

therefore, is able to estimate the full 

opportunity cost per petitioner, 

including employee wages and salaries 

and the full cost of benefits such as paid 

leave, insurance, retirement, etc.34 DHS 

multiplied the average hourly U.S. wage 

rate for HR specialists and in-house 

lawyers by 1.45 to account for the full 

cost of employee benefits, for a total of 

$50.94 35 per hour for an HR specialist 

and $114.17 36 per hour for an in-house 

lawyer. DHS recognizes that a firm may 

choose, but is not required, to outsource 

the preparation of these petitions and, 

therefore, presents two wage rates for 

lawyers. To determine the full 

opportunity costs of time if a firm hired 

an outsourced lawyer, DHS multiplied 

the average hourly U.S. wage rate for 

lawyers by 2.5 37 for a total of $196.85 38

to approximate an hourly wage rate for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7482 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

39The DHS analysis in ‘‘Exercise of Time-Limited 

Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 

Numerical Limitation for the H–2B Temporary 

Nonagricultural Worker Program,’’ 83 FR 24905 

(May 31, 2018), https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2018/05/31/2018-11732/exercise-oftime-limited-authority-to-increase-the-fiscal-year2018-numerical-limitation-for-the, used a multiplier 

of 2.5 to convert in-house attorney wages to the cost 

of outsourced attorney wages. The ICE rule ‘‘Final 

Small Entity Impact Analysis: ‘Safe-Harbor 

Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match 

Letter’ ’’ at G–4 (Aug. 25, 2008), https://

www.regulations.gov/document/ICEB-2006-0004- 

0922, also uses a multiplier. The methodology used 

in the Final Small Entity Impact Analysis remains 

sound for using 2.5 as a multiplier for outsourced 

labor wages in this final rule. 

40The DHS analysis in ‘‘Exercise of Time-Limited 

Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 

Numerical Limitation for the H–2B Temporary 

Nonagricultural Worker Program,’’ 83 FR 24905 

(May 31, 2018), https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2018/05/31/2018-11732/exercise-oftime-limited-authority-to-increase-the-fiscal-year2018-numerical-limitation-for-the, used a multiplier 

of 2.5 to convert in-house attorney wages to the cost 

of outsourced attorney wages. Also, the analysis for 

a DHS ICE rule, ‘‘Final Small Entity Impact 

Analysis: ‘Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers 

Who Receive a No-Match Letter’ ’’ at G–4 (Aug. 25, 

2008), https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

ICEB-2006-0004-0922, used a multiplier. The 

methodology used in the Final Small Entity Impact 

Analysis remains sound for using 2.5 as a multiplier 

for outsourced labor wages in this final rule. 

an outsourced lawyer 39 to prepare and 

submit an H–1B registration.40

Table 7 displays the estimated annual 

opportunity cost of time for submitting 

an H–1B registration employing an inhouse or outsourced lawyer to complete 

and submit an H–1B registration. DHS 

does not know the exact number of 

registrants who will choose an in-house 

or an outsourced lawyer but assumes it 

may be a 50/50 split and therefore 

provides an average. These current 

opportunity costs of time for submitting 

an H–1B registration using an attorney 

or other representative are estimated to 

range from $7,987,704 to $13,772,265 

with an average of $10,879,985. 

TABLE 7—CURRENT AVERAGE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME FOR SUBMITTING AN H–1B REGISTRATION WITH AN

ATTORNEY OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE

Population 

submitting 

with a 

lawyer 

Time burden to 

complete H–1B 

registration 

(hours) 

Cost of time 

Total current 

opportunity 

cost 

A B C D = (A × B × C) 

In-house lawyer ....................................................................... 135,404 0.5167 $114.17 $7,987,704 

Outsourced lawyer ................................................................... 135,404 0.5167 196.85 13,772,265 

Average ............................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 10,879,985 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

To estimate the current remaining 

opportunity cost of time for an HR 

specialist submitting an H–1B 

registration without a lawyer, DHS 

applies the estimated public reporting 

time burden (0.5167 hours) to the 

compensation rate of an HR specialist. 

Table 8 estimates the current total 

annual opportunity cost of time to HR 

specialists completing and submitting 

an H–1B registration will be 

approximately $3,860,904. 

TABLE 8—CURRENT AVERAGE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME FOR SUBMITTING AN H–1B REGISTRATION, WITHOUT AN

ATTORNEY OR ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE

Population 

Time burden to 

complete H–1B 

registration 

(hours) 

HR specialist’s 

opportunity 

cost of time 

Total 

opportunity 

cost of time 

A B C D = (A × B × C) 

Estimate of H–1B Registrations ................................................................................ 146,687 0.5167 $50.94 $3,860,904 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

Table 9 shows the final estimated 

time burden will increase by 5 minutes 

to 36 minutes (0.6 hours) to the eligible 

population and compensation rates of 

those who may submit registrations 

with or without a lawyer due to changes 

in the instructions, adding clarifying 

language regarding denying or revoking 

approved H–1B petitions, adding 

passport or travel document 

instructional language, and verifying 

such information before submitting 

registrations. DHS does not know the 

exact number of registrants who will 

choose an in-house or an outsourced 

lawyer but assumes it may be a 50/50 

split and therefore provides an average. 

DHS estimates that these current 

opportunity costs of time for submitting 

an H–1B registration using an attorney 

or other representative range from 

$9,275,445 to $15,992,566 with an 

average of $12,634,006. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7483 

TABLE 9—NEW OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME FOR AN H–1B REGISTRATION, REGISTRANTS SUBMITTING WITH AN

ATTORNEY OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE

Population of 

registrants 

submitting 

with a 

lawyer 

Time burden to 

complete H–1B 

registration 

(hours) 

Cost of time 

Total 

opportunity 

cost 

A B C D = (A × B × C) 

In House Lawyer ...................................................................... 135,404 0.6 $114.17 $9,275,445 

Outsourced Lawyer .................................................................. 135,404 0.6 $196.85 15,992,566 

Average ............................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 12,634,006 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

To estimate the current remaining 

opportunity cost of time for an HR 

specialist submitting an H–1B 

registration without a lawyer, DHS 

applies the final estimated public 

reporting time burden (0.6 hours) to the 

compensation rate of an HR specialist. 

Table 10 estimates the current total 

annual opportunity cost of time to HR 

specialists completing and submitting 

the H–1B registration will be 

approximately $4,483,341. 

TABLE 10—FINAL AVERAGE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME FOR AN H–1B REGISTRATION, SUBMITTING WITHOUT AN

ATTORNEY OR ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE

Population 

Time burden to 

complete H–1B 

registration 

(hours) 

HR specialist’s 

opportunity 

cost of time 

(48.40/hr.) 

Total 

opportunity 

cost of time 

A B C D = (A × B × C) 

Estimate H–1B Registration .................................................... 146,687 0.6 $50.94 $4,483,341 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

DHS estimates the total additional 

annual cost for attorneys and HR 

specialists to complete and submit H– 

1B registrations are expected to be 

$2,376,458 shown in Table 11. This 

table shows the current total 

opportunity cost of time to submit an 

H–1B registration and the final total 

opportunity cost of time. 

TABLE 11—TOTAL COSTS TO COMPLETE THE H–1B REGISTRATION

Average Current Opportunity Cost Time for Lawyers to Complete the H–1B Registration ................................................................................................. $10,879,985 

Average Current Opportunity Cost Time for HR Specialist to Complete the H–1B Registration ........................................................................................ 3,860,904 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14,740,889 

Average Final Opportunity Cost Time for Lawyers to Complete the H–1B Registration ..................................................................................................... 12,634,006 

Average Final Opportunity Cost Time for HR Specialist to Complete the H–1B Registration ............................................................................................ 4,483,341 

Total ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17,117,347 

Final Additional Opportunity Costs of Time to Complete the H–1B Registration ......................................................................................................... 2,376,458 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7484 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

41Calculation: 100%¥71% Registrations for a 

single beneficiary = 29% Registrations submitted 

for multiple beneficiaries. 

42Calculation: Total Registrations 355,592¥Total 

average number of unique beneficiaries with 

registrations submitted on their behalf 282,091 = 

73,501 Estimate of registrations that may no longer 

be submitted. 

(3) Beneficiary Centric Selection 

Under the final provision, DHS will 

modify the random selection process. 

Registrants will continue to submit 

registrations on behalf of beneficiaries, 

and beneficiaries will continue to be 

able to have more than one registration 

submitted on their behalf, as generally 

allowed by applicable regulations. If a 

random selection were necessary 

(meaning, more registrations are 

submitted than the number of 

registrations USCIS projected as needed 

to reach the numerical allocations), then 

the random selection will be based on 

each unique beneficiary identified in 

the registration pool, rather than each 

registration. If a beneficiary is selected, 

then all registrants who properly 

submitted a registration for that selected 

beneficiary will be notified of the 

selection and that they are eligible to 

file an H–1B cap petition on behalf of 

the beneficiary during the applicable 

petition filing period. 

DHS believes that changing how 

USCIS conducts the selection process to 

select by unique beneficiaries instead of 

registrations will give each unique 

beneficiary an equal chance at selection 

and will reduce the advantage that 

beneficiaries with multiple registrations 

submitted on their behalf have over 

beneficiaries with a single registration 

submitted on their behalf. DHS believes 

that it will also reduce the incentive that 

registrants may have to work with 

others to submit registrations for the 

same beneficiary to unfairly increase the 

chance of selection for the beneficiary 

because doing so under the beneficiary 

centric selection approach will not 

result in an increase in the odds of 

selection. Selecting by unique 

beneficiary could also result in other 

benefits, such as giving beneficiaries 

greater autonomy regarding their H–1B 

employment. Under the baseline, 

employers attest that the registration 

reflects a legitimate job offer and they 

did not work with others to improve 

their chance of selection, and some 

beneficiaries have multiple legitimate 

registrations. Some beneficiaries who 

registered multiple times may see their 

relative odds of at least one lottery 

selection decline as a result of this rule, 

but this effect will be offset by the 

increased autonomy for beneficiaries. 

Under the current registration based 

selection process, beneficiaries with 

multiple registrations have their offer of 

employment determined by which 

registrant (prospective employer) was 

selected. After this final rule is in effect, 

selecting by unique beneficiary and 

providing each registrant with a 

selection notice will allow beneficiaries 

to select from among the registrants 

with legitimate job offers thus 

potentially giving beneficiaries greater 

autonomy regarding their H–1B 

employment; these beneficiaries may 

also have greater bargaining power or 

flexibility to negotiate with prospective 

employers. 

The integrity of the new selection 

process will rely on USCIS’s ability to 

accurately identify each individual 

beneficiary, and all registrations 

submitted on their behalf. DHS is 

requiring the submission of valid 

passport information or valid travel 

document information, including the 

passport or travel document number, 

country of issuance, and expiration 

date, in addition to the currently 

required information. See new 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4)(ii). While the final 

passport or travel document 

requirement could impact individuals 

who do not yet hold valid passports or 

travel documents at the time of 

registration, DHS has determined the 

described benefits of program integrity 

outweigh any additional burden to 

prospective beneficiaries. 

DHS estimates that the annual average 

receipts of H–1B registrations is 355,592 

with 71 percent of registrations being 

submitted for a beneficiary with only a 

single registration. DHS estimates that 

29 percent 41 of registrations are 

submitted by companies for 

beneficiaries who have also had other 

registrations submitted on their behalf. 

Based on this new provision, DHS 

estimates that there may be a reduction 

in registrations because beneficiaries 

will be less inclined to find as many 

different employers to submit 

registrations on their behalf as doing so 

will not affect their chance of selection. 

Also, DHS expects to see less abuse by 

unscrupulous registrants as they will 

not be able to increase the chance of 

selection for a beneficiary by working 

together with others to submit multiple 

registrations for the same beneficiary. 

TABLE 12—H–1B CAP-SUBJECT REGISTRATIONS RECEIVED BY USCIS FOR UNIQUE BENEFICIARIES

[Cap Year 2021 Through 2023] 

Cap year Total 

registrations 

Total number of 

registrations 

submitted for 

beneficiaries 

with multiple 

registrations 

Total number of 

registrations 

submitted for 

beneficiaries 

with a single 

registration 

Total number of 

unique beneficiaries 

with registrations 

submitted on 

their behalf 

% of total 

registrations 

submitted for 

beneficiaries 

with a single 

registration 

(%) 

2021 ............................................... 274,237 34,349 239,888 253,331 87 

2022 ............................................... 308,613 98,547 210,066 235,720 68 

2023 ............................................... 483,927 176,444 307,483 357,222 64 

3-year Total ............................. 1,066,777 309,340 757,437 846,273 71 

3-year Annual Average ........... 355,592 103,113 252,479 282,091 71 

Source: USCIS Office of Performance and Quality. 

DHS estimates that 73,501 42

registrations annually may no longer be 

submitted due to this final rule change. 

Of those 73,501 registrations, DHS 

estimated that an attorney or accredited 

representative submitted 48 percent of 

registrations and an HR representative 

submitted the remaining 52 percent 

shown in Table 5. 

Table 13 displays the estimated 

annual opportunity cost of time for 

submitting an H–1B registration 

employing an in-house or outsourced 

lawyer to complete and submit an H–1B 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7485 

43Calculation: Total Opportunity Cost Savings of 

time for H–1B Registrations ($3,840,822) + Total 

Cost Savings for Registration Fees ($735,010) = 

$4,575,832 Total Cost Savings. 

44Calculation: 100,000 Annual Registrations for 

beneficiaries with multiple registrations × $215 

Registration Fee = $21,500,000 Cost savings. 

registration. DHS does not know the 

exact number of prospective petitioners 

who will choose an in-house or an 

outsourced lawyer but assumes it may 

be a 50/50 split and therefore provides 

an average. DHS estimates that these 

current opportunity costs of time for 

submitting an H–1B registration using 

an attorney or other representative range 

from $2,081,225 to $3,588,413, with an 

average of $2,834,819. 

TABLE 13—CURRENT ANNUAL AVERAGE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME FOR SUBMITTING AN H–1B REGISTRATION, WITH

AN ATTORNEY OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE

Population of 

registrants 

submitting with 

a lawyer 

Time burden to 

complete H–1B 

registration 

(hours) 

Cost of time 

Total 

current 

opportunity 

cost 

A B C D = (A × B × C) 

In House Lawyer .............................................................................. 35,280 0.5167 $114.17 $2,081,225 

Outsourced Lawyer .......................................................................... 35,280 0.5167 196.85 3,588,413 

Average .................................................................................... .............................. ............................ ........................ 2,834,819 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

To estimate the current remaining 

opportunity cost of time for an HR 

specialist submitting an H–1B 

registration without a lawyer, DHS 

applies the estimated public reporting 

time burden (0.5167 hours) to the 

compensation rate of an HR specialist. 

Table 14 estimates the current total 

annual opportunity cost of time to HR 

specialists completing and submitting 

an H–1B registration will be 

approximately $1,006,003. 

TABLE 14—CURRENT ANNUAL AVERAGE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF TIME FOR SUBMITTING AN H–1B REGISTRATION, 

WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY OR ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE

Population 

Time burden to 

complete H–1B 

registration 

(hours) 

HR specialist’s 

opportunity cost 

of time 

Total opportunity 

cost of time 

A B C D = (A × B × C) 

Estimate of H–1B Registrations .............................................................. 38,221 0.5167 $50.94 $1,006,003 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

DHS estimates the total annual 

opportunity cost savings of time for not 

having to complete and submit H–1B 

registrations for beneficiaries with 

multiple registrations are expected to be 

$3,840,822, shown in Table 15. 

TABLE 15—TOTAL ANNUAL OPPORTUNITY COST SAVINGS OF TIME FOR

H–1B REGISTRATIONS

Average Current Opportunity 

Cost Time for Lawyers to 

Complete H–1B Registration .................................... $2,834,819 

Average Current Opportunity 

Cost Time for HR Specialist to Complete H–1B 

Registration ....................... 1,006,003 

Total ............................... 3,840,822 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

Prospective petitioners seeking to file 

H–1B cap-subject petitions, including 

for beneficiaries eligible for the 

additional visas for advanced degree 

holders, must first electronically register 

and pay the associated $10 H–1B 

registration fee for each prospective 

beneficiary. Due to this final change 

DHS estimates that prospective 

petitioners may now see an additional 

cost savings of $735,010. The annual 

total cost savings of this final 

beneficiary centric selection is 

$4,575,832.43

TABLE 16—TOTAL ANNUAL COST

SAVINGS FOR REGISTRATION FEES

Annual Registrations for the 

same beneficiaries ............ 73,501 

Registration Fee ................... $10 

Total Cost savings ......... $735,010 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

For purposes of this regulatory impact 

analysis, summarized in Table 2 A–4 

Accounting Statement, the existing $10 

registration fee is the appropriate 

baseline against which the impacts of 

the rule should be evaluated, however, 

DHS is simultaneously working on 

finalizing the ‘‘U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Fee Schedule and 

Changes to Certain Other Immigration 

Benefit Request Requirements’’ Rule. In 

the NPRM, USCIS proposed to increase 

the H–1B registration fee from $10 to 

$215. If DHS were to finalize the 

proposed increase, Table 16b shows an 

even larger cost savings to registrants 

based on the estimated reduction in the 

number of registrations that would be 

submitted. Currently the cost savings 

would be $735,010 shown in Table 6 

but would increase to $15,802,715 in 

Table 16b. If USCIS continued to see 

increased numbers of annual 

registrations for beneficiaries with 

multiple registrations, then the total cost 

savings of this rule would increase, for 

example if USCIS saw 100,000 annual 

registrations for beneficiaries with 

multiple registrations when the 

registration fee is $215, DHS would see 

a $21,500,000 44 cost savings from the 

beneficiary centric selection. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7486 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

45The regulations state that when an RFE is 

served by mail, the response is timely filed if it is 

received no more than 3 days after the deadline, 

providing a total of 87 days for a response to be 

submitted if USCIS provides the maximum period 

of 84 days under the regulations. The maximum 

response time for a NOID is 30 days. See 

Citizenship and Immigr. Servs., U.S. Dep’t of 

Homeland Security, USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 

1, ‘‘General Policies and Procedures,’’ Part E, 

‘‘Adjudications’’, Chapter 6, ‘‘Evidence.’’ https:// 

www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-echapter-6. 

46See ‘‘U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain 

Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements,’’ 

88 FR 402, 527 (Jan. 4, 2023) (proposed rule). 

47Calculations: $4,575,832 Total Cost 

Savings¥$2,376,458 Total Costs = $2,199,3741 Net 

Cost Savings. 

TABLE 16b—TOTAL ANNUAL COST

SAVINGS FOR REGISTRATION FEES

Annual Registrations for 

beneficiaries with multiple 

registrations ....................... 73,501 

Registration Fee ................... $215 

Total Cost savings ......... $15,802,715 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

(4) Registrations With False Information 

or That Are Otherwise Invalid 

Although registration is an antecedent 

procedural step undertaken prior to 

filing an H–1B petition, the validity of 

the registration information is key to the 

registrant’s eligibility to file a petition. 

As stated in the current regulations, 

‘‘[t]o be eligible to file a petition for a 

beneficiary who may be counted against 

the H–1B regular cap or the H–1B 

advanced degree exemption for a 

particular fiscal year, a registration must 

be properly submitted in accordance 

with 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1), [8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii),] and the form 

instructions.’’ See 8 CFR 

214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(1). USCIS does not 

consider a registration to be properly 

submitted if the information contained 

in the registration, including the 

required attestations, was not true and 

correct. Currently, the regulations state 

that it is grounds for denial or 

revocation if the statements of facts 

contained in the petition are not true 

and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, or 

misrepresented a material fact. DHS will 

clarify in the regulations that the 

grounds for denial of an H–1B petition 

or revocation of an H–1B petition 

approval extend to the information 

provided in the registration and to 

expressly state in the regulations that 

this includes attestations on the 

registration that are determined by 

USCIS to be false. 

DHS is also changing the regulations 

governing registration to provide USCIS 

with clearer authority to deny or revoke 

the approval of a petition based on a 

registration that was not properly 

submitted or was otherwise invalid. 

Specifically, DHS is adding that if a 

petitioner submits more than one 

registration per beneficiary in the same 

fiscal year, all registrations filed by that 

petitioner relating to that beneficiary for 

that fiscal year may be considered not 

only invalid, but that ‘‘USCIS may deny 

or revoke the approval of any petition 

filed for the beneficiary based on those 

registrations.’’ 

Additionally, DHS is adding that 

USCIS may deny or revoke the approval 

of an H–1B petition if it determines that 

the fee associated with the registration 

is declined, not reconciled, disputed, or 

otherwise invalid after submission. 

These final changes may increase the 

need for RFEs and NOIDs. It is 

important to note that issuing RFEs and 

NOIDs takes time and effort for 

adjudicators—to send, receive, and 

adjudicate documentation—and it 

requires additional time and effort for 

petitioners to respond, resulting in 

extended timelines for adjudications.45

Data on RFEs and NOIDs related to H– 

1B false information are not 

standardized or tracked in a consistent 

way, thus they are not accurate or 

reliable. 

(5) Alternatives Considered 

DHS considered the alternative of 

eliminating the registration system and 

reverting to the paper-based filing 

system stakeholders used prior to 

implementing registration. However, 

when DHS considered the cost savings 

that registration provides to both USCIS 

and stakeholders and the significant 

resources the agency would incur to 

revert back to a paper-based H–1B cap 

selection process, the benefits of having 

a registration system still outweigh the 

costs of abuse of the system. 

Total Quantified Net Costs of the Final 

Regulatory Changes 

In this section, DHS presents the total 

annual cost savings of this final rule 

annualized over a 10-year period of 

analysis. Table 17 details the annual 

cost savings of this final rule. DHS 

estimates the total cost savings is 

$4,575,832. This cost savings is based 

on the current registration fee of $10 per 

registration. 

TABLE 17—SUMMARY OF COST

SAVINGS

Description Cost savings 

Beneficiary Centric Selection 

Cost of Time ..................... $3,840,822 

Beneficiary Centric Selection 

Cost of Registrations ........ 735,010 

Total Cost Savings ........ 4,575,832 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

Table 17b shows the annual cost 

savings of this final rule under the 

proposed $215 registration fee. DHS 

estimates the total cost savings would be 

$19,643,537. The estimates in Tables 

16b and 17b serve only to illustrate the 

impact to cost savings estimates if the 

fee is increased to $215 in a separate 

rulemaking.46

TABLE 17b—SUMMARY OF COST SAVINGS—UNDER PROPOSED REGISTRATION FEE INCREASE

Description Cost savings 

Beneficiary Centric Selection 

Cost of Time ..................... $3,840,822 

Beneficiary Centric Selection 

Cost of Registrations (Proposed $215 Fee) ............... 15,802,715 

Total Cost Savings ........ 19,643,537 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

DHS summarizes the annual costs of 

this final rule. Table 18 details the 

annual costs of this final rule. DHS 

estimates the total cost is $2,376,458. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF COSTS

Description Costs 

The H–1B Registration System $2,376,458 

Total Costs ........................ 2,376,458 

Source: USCIS Analysis. 

Net cost savings to the public of 

$2,199,374 are the total costs minus cost 

savings.47 Table 19 illustrates that over 

a 10-year period of analysis from FY 

2023 through FY 2032 annualized cost 

savings will be $2,199,374 using 7- 

percent and 3-percent discount rates. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7487 

48A small business is defined as any 

independently owned and operated business not 

dominant in its field that qualifies as a small 

business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. 

49See Small Business Administration, ‘‘A Guide 

For Government Agencies, How to Comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act,’’ at 22, https://

advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ 

How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA.pdf (last visited Aug. 

23 2023). 

50Note however, that in ‘‘U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 

Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request 

Requirements,’’ 88 FR 402, 527 (Jan. 4, 2023) 

(proposed rule), DHS proposed to increase the H– 

1B registration fee from $10 to $215 per registration 

submitted. While the underlying purpose of the 

proposed fee increase is to ensure full cost recovery 

for USCIS adjudication and naturalization services, 

DHS recognizes the possibility that the increase in 

the H–1B registration fee may have an impact on 

the number of H–1B registrations submitted, 

including those submitted to improperly increase 

the chance of selection. However, any potential 

impact of that separate regulatory proposal is purely 

speculative. DHS also acknowledged this related 

rulemaking in the NPRM. See 88 FR 72870, 72897 

(Oct. 23, 2023). 

TABLE 19—DISCOUNTED NET COST SAVINGS OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS

Fiscal year 

Total estimated cost savings 

$2,199,374 (Undiscounted) 

Discounted at 

3 percent 

Discounted at 

7 percent 

2023 ............................................................................................................................................................. $2,135,315 $2,055,490 

2024 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,073,121 1,921,018 

2025 ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,012,739 1,795,344 

2026 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,954,115 1,677,892 

2027 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,897,199 1,568,123 

2028 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,841,941 1,465,536 

2029 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,788,292 1,369,660 

2030 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,736,206 1,280,056 

2031 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,685,637 1,196,314 

2032 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,636,541 1,118,050 

10-year Total ........................................................................................................................................ 18,761,106 15,447,483 

Annualized Cost ................................................................................................................................... 2,199,374 2,199,374 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 and 602, as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, Public Law 104–121, requires 

Federal agencies to consider the 

potential impact of regulations on small 

businesses, small governmental 

jurisdictions, and small organizations 

during the development of their rules. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000.48

An ‘‘individual’’ is not considered a 

small entity and costs to an individual 

are not considered a small entity impact 

for RFA purposes. In addition, the 

courts have held that the RFA requires 

an agency to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of small entity 

impacts only when a rule directly 

regulates small entities.49 Consequently, 

indirect impacts from a rule on a small 

entity are not considered as costs for 

RFA purposes. 

USCIS’s RFA analysis for this final 

rule focuses on the population of Form 

I–129 petitions for H–1B workers as a 

proxy for the impacts of this rule 

focused on H–1B registrations and 

associated registrants. Since H–1B 

registration is an antecedent procedural 

step taken before a selected registrant 

can file an H–1B petition, this is an 

appropriate proxy for analyzing the 

impacts of this final rule action on small 

entities. Where cost savings occur from 

multiple registrants no longer 

registering on behalf of a common 

beneficiary, either deliberately or 

inadvertently, USCIS is unable to 

quantify the portion of potential cost 

savings accruing to small entities. Some 

of these cost savings may be partially 

offset by the advantage multiple 

registrations conferred over single, 

unique registrants, but it is ambiguous 

whether such small entities enjoy this 

advantage or feel increasingly 

compelled to do this by their belief that 

other registrants are doing so. 

1. A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

amend the regulations relating to the H– 

1B registration selection process. 

2. A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments. 

DHS invited comments in the NPRM 

but did not receive any comments 

specific to the IRFA.50 USCIS responded 

to general comments concerning the 

rule in Section III. Public Comments on 

the Proposed Rule. 

3. The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed 

rule in the final rule as a result of the 

comments. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7488 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

51The annual numeric estimate of the small 

entities (37,815) = Population (44,593) * Percentage 

of small entities (84.8%). 

52The economic impact, in percentage, for each 

small entity i = ((Cost of one petition for entity i 

× Number of petitions for entity i)/Entity i’s sales 

revenue) × 100. 

The cost of one petition for entity i ($1¥4.43) is 

estimated by dividing the total cost of this proposed 

rule by the estimated population. ¥$2,199,374/ 

355,592 = ¥$6.19 

The entity’s sales revenue is taken from 

ReferenceUSA, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar 

databases. 

DHS invited comments in NPRM but 

did not receive any comments filed by 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

4. A description and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available. 

For this analysis, DHS conducted a 

sample analysis of historical Form I–129 

H–1B petitions to estimate the number 

of small entities impacted by this rule. 

DHS utilized a subscription-based 

electronic database of U.S. entities, 

ReferenceUSA, as well as three other 

open-access, free databases of public 

and private entities, Manta, Cortera, and 

Guidestar to determine the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code, revenue, and 

employee count for each entity. To 

determine whether an entity is small for 

purposes of RFA, DHS first classified 

the entity by its NAICS code and then 

used Small Business Administration 

(SBA) guidelines to classify the revenue 

or employee count threshold for each 

entity. Some entities were classified as 

small based on their annual revenue, 

and some by their numbers of 

employees. 

Using FY 2022 internal data on actual 

filings of Form I–129 H–1B petitions, 

DHS identified 44,593 unique entities. 

DHS devised a methodology to conduct 

the small entity analysis based on a 

representative, random sample of the 

potentially impacted population. DHS 

first determined the minimum sample 

size necessary to achieve a 95-percent 

confidence level confidence interval 

estimation for the impacted population 

of entities using the standard statistical 

formula at a 5-percent margin of error. 

DHS then created a sample size greater 

than the minimum necessary to increase 

the likelihood that our matches would 

meet or exceed the minimum required 

sample. DHS notes that the random 

sample was drawn from the population 

of Form I–129 H–1B petitioners for 

purposes of estimating impacts of each 

provision in the NPRM, including those 

finalized here, on the population of 

Form I–129 H–1B petitioners at-large. 

Alternative approaches would be to 

draw a random sample from the 

population of H–1B registrants, 

however, this approach encounters the 

same problem this final rule seeks to 

address. Namely, it is difficult to 

discern the relationship between 

registrations and the Form I–129 H–1B 

administrative data. Thus, analyzing the 

impact of changes to registrations by 

unique entities using a sample of Form 

I–129 H–1B data is preferred. 

DHS randomly selected a sample of 

3,396 entities from the population of 

44,593 entities that filed Form I–129 for 

H–1B petitions in FY 2022. Of the 3,396 

entities, 1,724 entities returned a 

successful match of a filing entity in the 

ReferenceUSA, Manta, Cortera, and 

Guidestar databases; 1,672 entities did 

not return a match. Using these 

databases’ revenue or employee count 

and their assigned NAICS code, DHS 

determined 1,209 of the 1,724 matches 

to be small entities, 515 to be non-small 

entities. DHS assumes filing entities 

without database matches or missing 

revenue/employee count data are likely 

to be small entities. As a result, in order 

to prevent underestimating the number 

of small entities this final rule will 

affect, DHS considers all the nonmatched and missing entities as small 

entities for the purpose of this analysis. 

Therefore, DHS classifies 2,881 of 3,396 

entities as small entities, including 

combined non-matches (1,672), and 

small entity matches (1,209). Thus, DHS 

estimates that 84.8 percent (2,881 of 

3,396) of the entities filing Form I–129 

H–1B petitions are small entities. 

In this analysis DHS assumes that the 

distribution of firm size for our sample 

is the same as the entire population of 

Form I–129 H–1B petitioners. Thus, 

DHS estimates the number of small 

entities to be 84.8 percent of the 

population of 44,593 entities that filed 

Form I–129 under the H–1B 

classification, as summarized in Table 

19 below. The annual numeric estimate 

of the small entities impacted by this 

final rule is 37,815 entities.51

TABLE 19—NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES FOR FORM I–129 FOR H–1B, FY 2022 

Population 

Number of 

small 

entities 

Proportion of 

population 

(percent) 

44,593 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37,815 84.8 

Following the distributional 

assumptions above, DHS uses the set of 

1,209 small entities with matched 

revenue data to estimate the economic 

impact of the final rule on each small 

entity. Typically, DHS will estimate the 

economic impact, in percentage, for 

each small entity is the sum of the 

impacts of the final changes divided by 

the entity’s sales revenue.52 DHS 

constructed the distribution of 

economic impact of the final rule based 

on the 1,209 small entity matches in the 

sample. Because this final rule resulted 

in an overall cost savings for registrants 

there also would be no adverse impact 

on the estimated small entity 

population. Based on FY 2022 revenue, 

of the 1,209 small entities, 0 percent (0 

small entities) would experience a cost 

increase that is greater than 1 percent of 

revenues. 

5. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the types of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

The beneficiary centric selection 

process would result in additional 

burden to employers reporting 

beneficiaries’ passport or travel 

document information in the 

registration system. DHS estimates 

increase for each of these respective 

burdens is 5 minutes. 

6. A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant adverse economic impact on 

small entities 

With respect to beneficiary centric 

selection process, there are no burdens 

to be minimized. While collection of 

passport or travel document information 

imposes some burden to prospective 

employers, USCIS found no other 

alternatives that achieved stated 

objectives with less burden to small 

entities. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7489 

53See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). 

54See BLS, ‘‘Historical Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers (CPI–U): U.S. city average, all 

items, by month,’’ www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/ 

supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202212.pdf (last 

visited Jan. 19, 2023). Calculation of inflation: (1) 

Calculate the average monthly CPI–U for the 

reference year (1995) and the current year (2022); 

(2) Subtract reference year CPI–U from current year 

CPI–U; (3) Divide the difference of the reference 

year CPI–U and current year CPI–U by the reference 

year CPI–U; (4) Multiply by 100 = [(Average 

monthly CPI–U for 2022¥Average monthly CPI–U 

for 1995)/(Average monthly CPI–U for 1995)] * 100 

= [(292.655¥152.383)/152.383] * 100 = (140.272/ 

152.383) * 100 = 0.92052263 * 100 = 92.05 percent 

= 92 percent (rounded). Calculation of inflationadjusted value: $100 million in 1995 dollars * 1.92 

= $192 million in 2022 dollars. 

55The term ‘‘Federal mandate’’ means a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private 

sector mandate. See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1), 658(6). 

56 88 FR 72870, 72955 (Oct. 23, 2023). 

57The commenter stated: ‘‘Categorical exclusion 

A3, in full, is as follows: A3 Promulgation of rules, 

issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the 

development and publication of policies, orders, 

directives, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory 

circulars, and other guidance documents of the 

following nature: (a) Those of a strictly 

administrative or procedural nature; (b) Those that 

implement, without substantive change, statutory or 

regulatory requirements; (c) Those that implement, 

without substantive change, procedures, manuals, 

and other guidance documents; (d) Those that 

interpret or amend an existing regulation without 

changing its environmental effect; (e) Technical 

guidance on safety and security matters; or (f) 

Guidance for the preparation of security plans.’’ 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and Tribal governments. 

Title II of UMRA requires each Federal 

agency to prepare a written statement 

assessing the effects of any Federal 

mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule 

for which the agency published a 

proposed rule, that includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in a $100 

million or more expenditure (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private 

sector.53

In addition, the inflation-adjusted 

value of $100 million in 1995 is 

approximately $192 million in 2022 

based on the Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers (CPI–U).54 This 

final rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate as the term is defined under 

UMRA.55 The requirements of title II of 

UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and 

DHS has not prepared a statement under 

UMRA. 

D. Congressional Review Act 

OIRA has determined that this final 

rule is not a major rule, as defined in 5 

U.S.C. 804, for purposes of 

Congressional review of agency 

rulemaking pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, Public Law 

104–121, title II, sec. 251 (Mar. 29, 

1996), 110 Stat. 868 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 

801–808). This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. 

DHS will send this rule to Congress 

and to the Comptroller General as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This final rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

final rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This final rule was drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final 

rule was written to provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct and was 

carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguities, so as to 

minimize litigation and undue burden 

on the Federal court system. DHS has 

determined that this final rule meets the 

applicable standards provided in 

section 3 of E.O. 12988. 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This final rule does not have ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

Accordingly, E.O. 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, requires no further 

agency action or analysis. 

H. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Public Comments 

As discussed in the NEPA section of 

the NPRM,56 DHS proposed a broader 

set of reforms in the H–1B program, as 

well as discrete reforms impacting other 

nonimmigrant programs. DHS received 

one public comment on the NEPA 

discussion in the NPRM. DHS is 

addressing that comment here to the 

extent it pertains to the provisions of 

this final rule. DHS will also consider 

the public comment in the context of 

any future rule it may issue to finalize 

the remainder of the reforms proposed 

in the NPRM. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that DHS’s reliance on categorical 

exclusion (‘‘CATEX’’) A3 57 is arbitrary 

and capricious and indicated that DHS 

must prepare an environmental impact 

statement or at least an environmental 

assessment before finalizing the NPRM. 

The commenter asserted that the action 

proposed in the NPRM is an action that, 

by its nature, increases the population 

because its goal is to increase the 

number of foreign nationals who enter 

the country. The commenter argued that 

the action proposed in the NPRM has 

the potential to have a cumulative effect 

when combined with other actions that 

increase levels of immigration, and that 

it should be considered rather than 

categorically excluded. The commenter 

further stated that DHS’s use of 

categorical exclusion A3 is ‘‘entirely 

irrational’’ because DHS could not 

assess the environmental impact of the 

rule and thus concluded that the rule is 

of the type that would not have any. The 

commenter further stated that the NPRM 

does not fit into any of the categories 

under CATEX A3, and that DHS was not 

considering rules that increase 

immigration to the United States when 

it formulated this rule. 

Response: DHS disagrees with both 

the factual and the legal assertions made 

by this commenter. The commenter 

cited no data, analysis, evidence, or 

statements made by DHS in the NPRM 

to support the commenter’s assertion. 

Specifically with respect to the 

provisions being finalized through this 

rule, the intended and expected impact 

of those provisions has no relationship 

to increasing the number of foreign 

nationals in the United States. Rather, as 

discussed throughout this preamble, 

DHS is amending existing regulations to 

make the H–1B registration selection 

process fairer for all beneficiaries and 

improve the integrity of the program as 

a whole. The inclusion of start date 

flexibility in this final rule eliminates a 

confusing regulatory provision and 

aligns with current USCIS practice to 

allow petitioners to list a start date on 

the H–1B petition that is later than 

October 1 of a fiscal year for which an 

H–1B registration was selected. In 

addition, the expansion of existing 

regulatory provisions governing the 

denial of H–1B, H–2A, and H–2B 

petitions based on false statements 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7490 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

58See Public Law 91–190, 42 U.S.C. 4321- 4347. 

59See DHS, ‘‘Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act,’’ DHS Directive 023–01, 

Rev 01 (Oct. 31, 2014), and DHS Instruction Manual 

Rev. 01 (Nov. 6, 2014), https://www.dhs.gov/ 

publication/directive-023-01-rev-01-andinstruction-manual-023-01-001-01-rev-01-andcatex. 

60See 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. 

61See 40 CFR 1501.4(a). 

62See Instruction Manual, section V.B.2 (a–c). 

63 88 FR 72870 (Oct. 23, 2023). 

64 i. A potentially significant effect on public 

health or safety; ii. A potentially significant effect 

on species or habitats protected by the ESA, Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, or other law protecting a species 

or habitat; iii. A potentially significant effect on 

historic properties (e.g., districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, or objects) that are listed in or eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places, affects traditional cultural properties or 

sacred sites, or leads to the loss or destruction of 

a significant scientific, cultural, or historical 

resource; iv. A potentially significant effect on an 

environmentally sensitive area. v. A potential or 

threatened violation of a Federal, State, or local law 

or requirement imposed to protect the environment. 

Some examples of other requirements to consider 

are: a local noise control ordinance; the requirement 

to conform to an applicable State Implementation 

Plan for air quality standards; Federal, Tribal, State, 

or local requirements to control hazardous or toxic 

substances; and environmental permits; vi. An 

effect on the quality of the human environment that 

is likely to be highly controversial in terms of 

scientific validity, likely to be highly uncertain, or 

likely to involve unique or unknown environmental 

risks. This also includes effects that may result from 

the use of new technology or unproven technology. 

Controversy over, including public opposition to, a 

proposed action absent any demonstrable potential 

for significant environmental impacts does not itself 

constitute an extraordinary circumstance; vii. 

Extent to which a precedent is established for future 

actions with significant effects; viii. Significantly 

greater scope or size than normally experienced for 

this particular category of action; ix. Potential for 

significant degradation of already existing poor 

environmental conditions. Also, initiation of a 

potentially significant environmental degrading 

influence, activity, or effect in areas not already 

significantly modified from their natural condition; 

x. Whether the action is related to other actions 

with individually insignificant, but cumulatively 

significant impacts. 

(including findings of fraud or willful 

misrepresentation) made not only in the 

petition, but also in the H–1B 

registration, LCA, or TLC, as applicable, 

is intended to improve program 

integrity and provide USCIS with more 

explicit authority to deny or revoke 

petitions on the basis of false statements 

(including findings of fraud or willful 

misrepresentation). The amendments to 

existing regulations in this final rule 

clearly fit within CATEX A3 because 

they are administrative in nature, do not 

have the potential for significantly 

affecting the environment, and do not 

result in a change in any environmental 

effect of the current regulations. For 

example, the current H–1B registration 

process is fully electronic—registrants 

submit electronic registrations into the 

system and DHS selects from those 

registrations toward the 65,000 statutory 

annual cap or the statutory 20,000 

advanced degree exemption. After 

implementation of this final rule, DHS 

will continue to select toward the two 

statutory allocations but will do so 

based on each unique beneficiary, rather 

than registration. This change is not 

intended to increase the number of visas 

or foreign nationals that may come to 

the United States, and DHS does not 

foresee such an increase given the 

statutorily mandated annual numerical 

limitations. With respect to the start 

date flexibility provisions, DHS already 

accepts H–1B petitions with start dates 

after October 1 of a fiscal year so long 

as the start date is in the same fiscal year 

as the fiscal year for which an H–1B 

registration is selected and within 6 

months of the petition filing date. This 

regulatory change is not intended to 

increase the number of visas or foreign 

nationals in the United States, and DHS 

does not foresee such an increase 

because start date flexibility is merely a 

technical change to eliminate potential 

confusion when the applicable filing 

period extends after October 1 of the 

applicable fiscal year. Finally, the 

provisions governing the denial and 

revocation of petitions will provide 

more explicit authority for USCIS to 

deny or revoke H–1B petitions based on 

false statements but similarly is not 

intended to increase the number of visas 

or foreign nationals who may come to 

the United States, nor can DHS foresee 

such an increase happening. 

NEPA Final Rule Analysis 

DHS and its components analyze 

proposed actions to determine whether 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 58 applies to them and, if so, 

what degree of analysis is required. DHS 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 01 (Directive) 

and Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 01 (Instruction Manual) 59 establish 

the procedures DHS and its components 

use to comply with NEPA and the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing 

NEPA.60 The CEQ regulations allow 

Federal agencies to establish in their 

NEPA implementing procedures 

categories of actions (‘‘categorical 

exclusions’’) that experience has shown 

normally do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and, therefore, 

do not require preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement.61

Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 

1 lists the DHS categorical exclusions. 

Under DHS NEPA implementing 

procedures, for an action to be 

categorically excluded, it must satisfy 

each of the following three conditions: 

(1) the entire action clearly fits within 

one or more of the categorical 

exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece 

of a larger action; and (3) no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

create the potential for a significant 

environmental effect.62

As discussed throughout this 

preamble, this final rule will provide for 

the equal chance of selection for all H– 

1B beneficiaries and improve the 

integrity of the H–1B registration 

selection process through beneficiary 

centric selection, will allow for start 

date flexibility for H–1B petitioners, and 

will expand the ability of USCIS to deny 

and/or revoke petitions based on false 

statements made not just in the H–1B 

petition, but also in the H–1B 

registration, LCA, or TLC (applicable to 

H–2 programs). 

DHS considers these changes to be 

strictly administrative in nature, and 

finds they will have no significant 

impact on the environment, or any 

change in the environmental effect that 

will result from the final rule changes. 

DHS therefore finds this final rule 

clearly fits within categorical exclusion 

A3 established in the Department’s 

implementing procedures. 

Although, the amendments being put 

into place by this final rule were 

initially proposed as part of an NPRM 63

that included broader proposed reforms, 

these amendments can and will operate 

independently from the other proposed 

reforms and do not depend on those 

proposals being finalized. Inclusion of 

all proposed reforms in a single NPRM 

was for purposes of administrative 

efficiency and not an indication that the 

proposed regulatory amendments in this 

final rule are a necessary part of a larger 

regulatory action. 

DHS plans to address the other 

proposed reforms included in the NPRM 

through a separate final rule in which it 

will also discuss NEPA. However, this 

rule and any subsequent final rule 

resulting from the NPRM are each standalone regulatory actions. In accordance 

with the Instruction Manual’s NEPA 

implementing procedures, DHS has 

completed an evaluation of this rule to 

determine whether it involves one or 

more of the ten identified extraordinary 

circumstances 64 that present the 

potential for significant environmental 

impacts. DHS concludes from its 

analysis that no extraordinary 

circumstances are present requiring 

further environmental analysis and 

documentation. Therefore, this action is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7491 

categorically excluded and no further 

NEPA analysis is required. 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3512, 

DHS must submit to the OMB, for 

review and approval, any reporting 

requirements inherent in a rule, unless 

they are exempt. 

In compliance with the PRA, DHS 

published an NPRM on October 23, 

2023, in which comments on the 

revisions to the information collections 

associated with this rulemaking were 

requested. Any comments received on 

information collections activities were 

related to the beneficiary centric 

changes and documentation required for 

establishing unique beneficiary 

identification. DHS responded to those 

comments in Section III. of this final 

rule. The information collection 

instruments that will be revised with 

this final rule are described below. 

H–1B Registration Tool (OMB Control 

No. 1615–0144) 

Overview of information collection: 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Revision of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: H–1B 

Registration Tool. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of DHS 

sponsoring the collection: OMB–64; 

USCIS. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. USCIS uses the data collected on 

this form to determine which employers 

will be informed that they may submit 

a USCIS Form I–129, Petition for 

Nonimmigrant Worker, for H–1B 

classification. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection H–1B Registration Tool 

(Businesses) is 20,950 and the estimated 

hour burden per response is 0.6 hours. 

The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection H–1B Registration Tool 

(Attorneys) is 19,339 and the estimated 

hour burden per response is 0.6 hours. 

The total number of responses (355,590) 

is estimated by averaging the total 

number of registrations received during 

the H–1B cap FYs 2021, 2022, and 2023. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total estimated annual 

hour burden associated with this 

collection of information is 213,354 

hours. 

(7) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in cost) associated with the 

collection: The estimated total annual 

cost burden associated with this 

collection of information is $0. 

Form I–129 (OMB Control No. 1615– 

0009) 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Revision of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of DHS 

sponsoring the collection: I–129, E–1/E– 

2 Classification Supplement, Trade 

Agreement Supplement, H 

Classification Supplement, H–1B and 

H–1B1 Data Collection and Filing 

Exemption Supplement, L Classification 

Supplement, O and P Classification 

Supplement, Q–1 Classification 

Supplement, and R–1 Classification 

Supplement; USCIS. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. USCIS uses Form I–129 and 

accompanying supplements to 

determine whether the petitioner and 

beneficiary(ies) is (are) eligible for the 

nonimmigrant classification. A U.S. 

employer, or agent in some instances, 

may file a petition for nonimmigrant 

worker to employ foreign nationals 

under the following nonimmigrant 

classifications: H–1B, H–2A, H–2B, H– 

3, L–1, O–1, O–2, P–1, P–2, P–3, P–1S, 

P–2S, P–3S, Q–1, or R–1 nonimmigrant 

worker. The collection of this 

information is also required from a U.S. 

employer on a petition for an extension 

of stay or change of status for E–1, E– 

2, E–3, Free Trade H–1B1 Chile/ 

Singapore nonimmigrants and TN 

(USMCA workers) who are in the 

United States. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection I–129 is 294,751 and the 

estimated hour burden per response is 

2.42 hours. The estimated total number 

of respondents for the information 

collection E–1/E–1 Classification 

Supplement is 4,760 and the estimated 

hour burden per response is 0.67 hours. 

The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection Trade Agreement Supplement 

is 3,057 and the estimated hour burden 

per response is 0.67 hours. The 

estimated total number of respondents 

for the information collection H 

Classification is 96,291 and the 

estimated hour burden per response is 

2.07 hours. The estimated total number 

of respondents for the information 

collection H–1B and H–1B1 Data 

Collection and Filing Fee Exemption 

Supplement is 96,291 and the estimated 

hour burden per response is 1 hour. The 

estimated total number of respondents 

for the information collection L 

Classification Supplement is 37,831 and 

the estimated hour burden per response 

is 1.34 hours. The estimated total 

number of respondents for the 

information collection O and P 

Classification Supplement is 22,710 and 

the estimated hour burden per response 

is 1 hour. The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection Q–1 Classification 

Supplement is 155 and the estimated 

hour burden per response is 0.34 hours. 

The estimated total number of 

respondents for the information 

collection R–1 Classification 

Supplement is 6,635 and the estimated 

hour burden per response is 2.34 hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The total estimated annual 

hour burden associated with this 

collection of information is 1,103,130 

hours. 

(7) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in cost) associated with the 

collection: The estimated total annual 

cost burden associated with this 

collection of information is $70,681,290. 

VI. List of Subjects and Regulatory 

Amendments 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR part 214 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange 

program, Employment, Foreign officials, 

Health professions, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Students. 

Accordingly, DHS amends chapter I of 

title 8 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 214 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 

1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 

1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305, 1357, and 

1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 

3009–708; Pub. L. 106–386, 114 Stat. 1477– 

1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free 

Association with the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 

48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, 

respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; 

Pub. L. 115–218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 

1806). 

■ 2. Amend § 214.2 by: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7492 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (h)(8)(iii)(A), 

(D) and (E); 

■ b. Revising and republishing 

paragraph (h)(8)(v); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (h)(10)(ii); 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (h)(10)(iii); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs 

(h)(11)(iii)(A)(2) and (5); and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (h)(11)(iii)(A)(6). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

§ 214.2 Special requirements for 

admission, extension, and maintenance of 

status. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(A) Registration—(1) Registration 

requirement. Except as provided in 

paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of this section, 

before a petitioner can file an H–1B capsubject petition for a beneficiary who 

may be counted under section 

214(g)(1)(A) of the Act (‘‘H–1B regular 

cap’’) or eligible for exemption under 

section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act (‘‘H–1B 

advanced degree exemption’’), 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–1B regular cap or 

the H–1B advanced degree exemption 

for a particular fiscal year, a registration 

must be properly submitted in 

accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1), 

paragraph (h)(8)(iii) of this section, and 

the form instructions, for the same fiscal 

year. 

(2) Limitation on beneficiaries. A 

prospective petitioner must 

electronically submit a separate 

registration for each beneficiary it seeks 

to register, and each beneficiary must be 

named. A petitioner may only submit 

one registration per beneficiary in any 

fiscal year. If a petitioner submits more 

than one registration per beneficiary in 

the same fiscal year, all registrations 

filed by that petitioner relating to that 

beneficiary for that fiscal year may be 

considered invalid, and USCIS may 

deny or revoke the approval of any H– 

1B petition filed for the beneficiary 

based on those registrations. If 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–1B petition filed based on 

those registrations. Petitioners will be 

given notice and the opportunity to 

respond before USCIS denies or revokes 

the approval of a petition. 

(3) Initial registration period. The 

annual initial registration period will 

last a minimum of 14 calendar days and 

will start at least 14 calendar days 

before the earliest date on which H–1B 

cap-subject petitions may be filed for a 

particular fiscal year, consistent with 

paragraph (h)(2)(i)(I) of this section. 

USCIS will announce the start and end 

dates of the initial registration period on 

the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov for 

each fiscal year. USCIS will announce 

the start of the initial registration period 

at least 30 calendar days in advance of 

such date. 

(4) Selecting registrations based on 

unique beneficiaries. Registrations will 

be counted based on the number of 

unique beneficiaries who are registered. 

USCIS will separately notify each 

registrant that their registration on 

behalf of a beneficiary has been 

selected, and that the petitioner(s) may 

file a petition(s) for that beneficiary. A 

petitioner may file an H–1B cap-subject 

petition on behalf of a registered 

beneficiary only after their properly 

submitted registration for that 

beneficiary has been selected for that 

fiscal year. 

(i) Should a random selection be 

necessary, as provided in paragraphs 

(h)(8)(iii)(A)(5)(ii), (h)(8)(iii)(A)(6)(ii), 

and (h)(8)(iii)(A)(7) of this section, each 

unique beneficiary will only be counted 

once towards the random selection of 

registrations, regardless of how many 

registrations were submitted for that 

beneficiary. 

(ii) Registrations must include the 

beneficiary’s valid passport information 

or valid travel document information, as 

specified in the form instructions. Each 

beneficiary must only be registered 

under one passport or travel document, 

and if or when the beneficiary is abroad, 

the passport information or travel 

document information must correspond 

to the passport or travel document the 

beneficiary intends to use to enter the 

United States. 

(5) Regular cap selection. In 

determining whether there are enough 

registrations for unique beneficiaries to 

meet the H–1B regular cap, USCIS will 

consider all properly submitted 

registrations relating to beneficiaries 

that may be counted under section 

214(g)(1)(A) of the Act, including those 

that may also be eligible for exemption 

under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act. 

Registrations will be counted based on 

the number of unique beneficiaries that 

are registered. 

(i) Fewer registrations than needed to 

meet the H–1B regular cap. At the end 

of the annual initial registration period, 

if USCIS determines that it has received 

fewer registrations for unique 

beneficiaries than needed to meet the 

H–1B regular cap, USCIS will notify all 

petitioners that have properly registered 

that their registrations have been 

selected. USCIS will keep the 

registration period open beyond the 

initial registration period, until it 

determines that it has received a 

sufficient number of registrations for 

unique beneficiaries to meet the H–1B 

regular cap. Once USCIS has received a 

sufficient number of registrations for 

unique beneficiaries to meet the H–1B 

regular cap, USCIS will no longer accept 

registrations for petitions subject to the 

H–1B regular cap under section 

214(g)(1)(A) of the Act. USCIS will 

monitor the number of registrations 

received and will notify the public of 

the date that USCIS has received the 

necessary number of registrations for 

unique beneficiaries (the ‘‘final 

registration date’’). The day the public is 

notified will not control the applicable 

final registration date. When necessary 

to ensure the fair and orderly allocation 

of numbers under section 214(g)(1)(A) of 

the Act, USCIS may randomly select the 

remaining number of registrations for 

unique beneficiaries deemed necessary 

to meet the H–1B regular cap from 

among the registrations received on the 

final registration date. This random 

selection will be made via computergenerated selection, based on the unique 

beneficiary. 

(ii) Sufficient registrations to meet the 

H–1B regular cap during initial 

registration period. At the end of the 

initial registration period, if USCIS 

determines that it has received more 

than sufficient registrations for unique 

beneficiaries to meet the H–1B regular 

cap, USCIS will no longer accept 

registrations under section 214(g)(1)(A) 

of the Act and will notify the public of 

the final registration date. USCIS will 

randomly select from among the 

registrations properly submitted during 

the initial registration period the 

number of registrations for unique 

beneficiaries deemed necessary to meet 

the H–1B regular cap. This random 

selection will be made via computergenerated selection, based on the unique 

beneficiary. 

(6) Advanced degree exemption 

selection. After USCIS has determined it 

will no longer accept registrations under 

section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act, USCIS 

will determine whether there is a 

sufficient number of remaining 

registrations to meet the H–1B advanced 

degree exemption. 

(i) Fewer registrations than needed to 

meet the H–1B advanced degree 

exemption numerical limitation. If 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7493 

USCIS determines that it has received 

fewer registrations for unique 

beneficiaries than needed to meet the 

H–1B advanced degree exemption 

numerical limitation, USCIS will notify 

all petitioners that have properly 

registered that their registrations have 

been selected. USCIS will continue to 

accept registrations to file petitions for 

beneficiaries that may be eligible for the 

H–1B advanced degree exemption under 

section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act until 

USCIS determines that it has received 

enough registrations for unique 

beneficiaries to meet the H–1B 

advanced degree exemption numerical 

limitation. USCIS will monitor the 

number of registrations received and 

will notify the public of the date that 

USCIS has received the necessary 

number of registrations for unique 

beneficiaries (the ‘‘final registration 

date’’). The day the public is notified 

will not control the applicable final 

registration date. When necessary to 

ensure the fair and orderly allocation of 

numbers under sections 214(g)(1)(A) 

and 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act, USCIS may 

randomly select the remaining number 

of registrations for unique beneficiaries 

deemed necessary to meet the H–1B 

advanced degree exemption numerical 

limitation from among the registrations 

properly submitted on the final 

registration date. This random selection 

will be made via computer-generated 

selection, based on the unique 

beneficiary. 

(ii) Sufficient registrations to meet the 

H–1B advanced degree exemption 

numerical limitation. If USCIS 

determines that it has received more 

than enough registrations for unique 

beneficiaries to meet the H–1B 

advanced degree exemption numerical 

limitation, USCIS will no longer accept 

registrations that may be eligible for 

exemption under section 214(g)(5)(C) of 

the Act and will notify the public of the 

final registration date. USCIS will 

randomly select the number of 

registrations for unique beneficiaries 

needed to meet the H–1B advanced 

degree exemption numerical limitation 

from among the remaining registrations 

for unique beneficiaries who may be 

counted against the advanced degree 

exemption numerical limitation. This 

random selection will be made via 

computer-generated selection, based on 

the unique beneficiary. 

(7) Increase to the number of 

beneficiaries projected to meet the H–1B 

regular cap or advanced degree 

exemption allocations in a fiscal year. 

Unselected registrations will remain on 

reserve for the applicable fiscal year. If 

USCIS determines that it needs to 

increase the number of registrations for 

unique beneficiaries projected to meet 

the H–1B regular cap or advanced 

degree exemption allocation, and select 

additional registrations for unique 

beneficiaries, USCIS will select from 

among the registrations that are on 

reserve a sufficient number to meet the 

H–1B regular cap or advanced degree 

exemption numerical limitation, as 

applicable. If all of the registrations on 

reserve are selected and there are still 

fewer registrations than needed to meet 

the H–1B regular cap or advanced 

degree exemption numerical limitation, 

as applicable, USCIS may reopen the 

applicable registration period until 

USCIS determines that it has received a 

sufficient number of registrations for 

unique beneficiaries projected as 

needed to meet the H–1B regular cap or 

advanced degree exemption numerical 

limitation. USCIS will monitor the 

number of registrations received and 

will notify the public of the date that 

USCIS has received the necessary 

number of registrations (the new ‘‘final 

registration date’’). The day the public is 

notified will not control the applicable 

final registration date. When necessary 

to ensure the fair and orderly allocation 

of numbers, USCIS may randomly select 

the remaining number of registrations 

for unique beneficiaries deemed 

necessary to meet the H–1B regular cap 

or advanced degree exemption 

numerical limitation from among the 

registrations properly submitted on the 

final registration date. If the registration 

period will be reopened, USCIS will 

announce the start of the re-opened 

registration period on the USCIS 

website at www.uscis.gov. 

* * * * * 

(D) H–1B cap-subject petition filing 

following registration—(1) Filing 

procedures. In addition to any other 

applicable requirements, a petitioner 

may file an H–1B petition for a 

beneficiary who may be counted under 

section 214(g)(1)(A) of the Act or 

eligible for exemption under section 

214(g)(5)(C) of the Act only if the 

petition is based on a valid registration, 

which means that the registration was 

properly submitted in accordance with 

8 CFR 103.2(a)(1), paragraph (h)(8)(iii) 

of this section, and the registration tool 

instructions; and was submitted by the 

petitioner, or its designated 

representative, on behalf of the 

beneficiary who was selected for that 

cap season by USCIS. A petitioner may 

not substitute the beneficiary named in 

the original registration or transfer the 

registration to another petitioner. Any 

H–1B petition filed on behalf of a 

beneficiary must contain and be 

supported by the same identifying 

information provided in the selected 

registration. Petitioners must submit 

evidence of the passport or travel 

document used at the time of 

registration to identify the beneficiary. 

In its discretion, USCIS may find that a 

change in identifying information in 

some circumstances would be 

permissible. Such circumstances could 

include, but are not limited to, a legal 

name change due to marriage, change in 

gender identity, or a change in passport 

number or expiration date due to 

renewal or replacement of a stolen 

passport, in between the time of 

registration and filing the petition. 

USCIS may deny or revoke the approval 

of an H–1B petition that does not meet 

these requirements. 

(2) Registration fee. USCIS may deny 

or revoke the approval of an H–1B 

petition if it determines that the fee 

associated with the registration is 

declined, not reconciled, disputed, or 

otherwise invalid after submission. The 

registration fee is non-refundable and 

due at the time the registration is 

submitted. 

(3) Filing period. An H–1B cap-subject 

petition must be properly filed within 

the filing period indicated on the 

relevant selection notice. The filing 

period for filing the H–1B cap-subject 

petition will be at least 90 days. If 

petitioners do not meet the 

requirements of this paragraph 

(h)(8)(iii)(D), USCIS may deny or reject 

the H–1B cap-subject petition. 

(E) Calculating the number of 

registrations needed to meet the H–1B 

regular cap and H–1B advanced degree 

exemption allocation. When calculating 

the number of registrations for unique 

beneficiaries needed to meet the H–1B 

regular cap and the H–1B advanced 

degree exemption numerical limitation 

for a given fiscal year, USCIS will take 

into account historical data related to 

approvals, denials, revocations, and 

other relevant factors. If necessary, 

USCIS may increase those numbers 

throughout the fiscal year. 

* * * * * 

(v) Severability. (A) The requirement 

to submit a registration for an H–1B capsubject petition and the selection 

process based on properly submitted 

registrations under paragraph (h)(8)(iii) 

of this section are intended to be 

severable from paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of 

this section. In the event paragraph 

(h)(8)(iii) of this section is not 

implemented, or in the event that 

paragraph (h)(8)(iv) of this section is not 

implemented, DHS intends that either of 

those provisions be implemented as an 

independent rule, without prejudice to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
7494 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

petitioners in the United States under 

this regulation, as consistent with law. 

(B) DHS intends that the provisions 

governing the beneficiary centric 

selection process in paragraph (h)(8)(iii) 

of this section, the elimination of the 

requirement that the requested start date 

for the beneficiary be the first day for 

the applicable fiscal year in 

(h)(8)(iii)(A)(4), and the provisions 

governing the denial or revocation of H– 

1B petitions based on inaccurate, 

fraudulent, or misrepresented material 

facts in the H–1B petition, H–1B 

registration, temporary labor 

certification, or labor condition 

application in paragraphs (h)(10)(ii) and 

(iii) and (h)(11)(iii) of this section, 

respectively, published on February 2, 

2024 be severable from one another. In 

the event that any of these provision(s) 

is held to be invalid or unenforceable by 

its terms, or as applied to any person or 

circumstance, it should be construed so 

as to continue to give the maximum 

effect to the provision(s) permitted by 

law, unless any such provision is held 

to be wholly invalid and unenforceable, 

in which event the provision(s) should 

be severed from the remainder of this 

section and the holding should not 

affect the remainder of this section or 

the application of the other provisions 

to persons not similarly situated or to 

dissimilar circumstances. 

* * * * * 

(10) * * * 

(ii) Denial for statement of facts on 

the petition, H–1B registration, 

temporary labor certification, labor 

condition application, or invalid H–1B 

registration. The petition will be denied 

if it is determined that the statements on 

the petition, H–1B registration (if 

applicable), the application for a 

temporary labor certification, or the 

labor condition application, were 

inaccurate, fraudulent, or 

misrepresented a material fact, 

including if the attestations on the 

registration are determined to be false. 

An H–1B cap-subject petition also will 

be denied if it is not based on a valid 

registration submitted by the petitioner 

(or its designated representative), or a 

successor in interest, for the beneficiary 

named or identified in the petition. 

(iii) Notice of denial. The petitioner 

will be notified of the reasons for the 

denial and of the right to appeal the 

denial of the petition under 8 CFR part 

103. There is no appeal from a decision 

to deny an extension of stay to the alien. 

(11) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) The statement of facts contained in 

the petition, H–1B registration (if 

applicable), the application for a 

temporary labor certification, or the 

labor condition application, was not 

true and correct, inaccurate, fraudulent, 

or misrepresented a material fact, 

including if the attestations on the 

registration are determined to be false; 

or 

* * * * * 

(5) The approval of the petition 

violated paragraph (h) of this section or 

involved gross error; or 

(6) The H–1B cap-subject petition was 

not based on a valid registration 

submitted by the petitioner (or its 

designated representative), or a 

successor in interest, for the beneficiary 

named or identified in the petition. 

* * * * * 

Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01770 Filed 1–30–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2