dismissed H-1B Case: Audio And Video Equipment Manufacturing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10960337 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 23, 2020 
The Petitioner, an audio and video equipment manufacturing company, sought to employ the 
Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations.1 The H-lB program 
allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires 
both: (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and (b) 
the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a 
minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially approved the Form 1-129, Petition 
for a N onimmigrant Worker. The Director of the California Service Center then revoked that approval, 
after issuing a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). 2 The matter is now before us on appeal. 3 The 
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 4 
Upon matter de novo 5 review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.7(a)(2)(3) regarding remittance of a fee that is not honored by the 
bank or financial institution on which it is drawn states that: 
If the benefit request was approved, the approval may be revoked upon notice. If the approved 
benefit request requires multiple fees, this provision will apply if any fee submitted is not 
honored. Other fees that were paid for a benefit request that is revoked under this provision 
will be retained and not refunded. A revocation of an approval because the fee submitted is not 
honored may be appealed to the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, in accordance with 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3 and the applicable form instructions. 
In this matter, the Petitioner attested in Section 2, Question 9 of the Form 1-129 H-IB and H-IBI Data 
Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement that it "currently employ[ ed] a total of 25 or fewer 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) , 8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). 
2 USCIS may revoke an H-lB petition approva l on notice, under five specific circumstances 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(A). 
3 After initially rejecting the appeal, we reopened the matter on a service motion. 
4 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
5 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
full-time equivalent employees in the United States, including all affiliates or subsidiaries of this 
company/organization," indicating that it was only "required to pay an additional ACWIA 6 fee of 
$750." 7 The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on May 21, 2019 explaining that it appeared 
that the Petitioner employed "26 or more full-time equivalent employees in the United States" and, 
thus, was subject to the $1500 ACWIA fee. In response, the Petitioner submitted the additional $750 
fee, without explanation for its inaccurate accounting in its initial submission. The Director then 
approved the petition on May 20, 2019. On June 18, 2019, the Director, referencing the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D) which clearly states that "[f]inancial instruments returned as unpayable 
for a reason other than insufficient funds will not be redeposited," issued a NOIR because the check 
was returned unpaid. The Director informed the Petitioner, in part, that the petition would be revoked 
unless it could provide evidence that the "payment was honored by the financial institution." 
In response to the NOIR, the Petitioner explained that, although it had sufficient funds to pay the 
check, there was a "filter" on the account that "rejects any and all checks presented to the bank 
regardless if they are legitimate or not." The Petitioner provided a letter from its bank confirming the 
"security and fraud prevention filter." Both the Petitioner and the bank stated that the funds were 
available and informed the Director that she could resubmit it. However, as previously noted, 
"[f]inancial instruments returned as unpayable for a reason other than insufficient funds will not be 
redeposited." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D). The Director, therefore, revoked the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that this was "a technical error on the part of' its bank and relies on 
Blanco v. Holder, 572 F. 3d 780, 784 (9th Cir. 2009). As noted by the Petitioner, however, that decision 
found that there was "no regulation [which] specified that the INS must reject a signed application 
accompanied by an unsigned check for the right amount of the fee, when all other aspects of the 
application were complete and proper." 
The issue in this matter, however, is not that the check was unsigned and thus, this case is 
distinguishable from Blanco. Further, USCIS does have regulations addressing the situation in this 
case. 8 C.F.R. § 103.7(a)(2)(iii) and § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(D). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2 (a)(l) states, in pertinent part, that 
Each form, benefit request, or other document must be filed with the fee(s) required by 
regulation. All USCIS fees are generally are non-refundable regardless of if the benefit request 
or other service is approved, denied, or selected, or how much time the adjudication or 
processing requires. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter I, fees must be paid when the 
request is filed or submitted. 
It is also important to note that the Petitioner did not accurately account for its employees when 
determining whether it was subject to the ACWIA fee and, thus, unlike Blanco, "all other aspects of 
the application were," in fact, not "complete and proper." An inaccurate statement anywhere on the 
Form 1-129 or in the evidence submitted in connection with the petition mandates its denial. See 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l0)(ii); see also§ 103.2(b)(l). 
6 American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 
7 Notably, the Petitioner acknowledged in its initial support letter that it "is the parent company to three companies." 
2 
For the above reasons, the revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed. The burden of 
proof to establish eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner in revocation 
proceedings. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 
1968); and Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450, 452, n. l (BIA 1987). In this matter, the Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3