dismissed H-1B Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2024 In Re: 35908243 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary under the H-lB nonimmigrant classification 
for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. employer to file a petition with U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 Nebraska Service Center Director approved then revoked the approval of the Form 1-129, Petition 
for a Nonimmigrant Worker (petition), concluding the Petitioner worked with another individual, 
entity, or organization to submit multiple registrations to unfairly increase the chances of selection for 
the Beneficiary of this petition. The Director revoked the petition's approval with a finding of fraud. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 
26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below "is not only common practice, but universally accepted"). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it and the other identified company the Director decided they 
worked with are separate legal entities and other factors that are not persuasive in overcoming the 
allegations and the bases for the Director's determinations. In fact, the Petitioner responded to the 
Director's notice of intent to revoke with similar claims and the Director found them inadequate and 
revoked the petition's approval with a finding of fraud. The Petitioner has not overcome numerous 
linkages between the two entities as they have not preponderantly demonstrated the Director's 
conclusions were erroneous. We agree with the Director that sufficient elements are present to support 
their finding of fraud. 
Where two permissible views of evidence exist, a factfinder's choice between them cannot be 
considered erroneous. Matter ofD-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 455 (BIA 2011) (citing Anderson v. City of 
Bessemer City, NC., 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) remanded and aff'd in part 27 I&N Dec. 105, 122 
(BIA 2017). See also United States v. Abiodun, 536 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir.) (internal quotation marks 
omitted), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1020, 129 S.Ct. 589, 172 L.Ed.2d 444 (2008). A trier of fact should 
consider the issues presented and provide a sufficiently reasoned analysis. They are not however, 
required to interpret evidence in the manner a petitioner advocates. Matter ofM-D-C-V-, 28 I&N Dec. 
18, 32 (BIA 2020); Matter ofJ-C-H-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 211,217 (BIA 2018); Matter ofZ-Z-O-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 586, 592 (BIA 2015); D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. at 454-55 (explaining that an Immigration Judge may 
make reasonable inferences from direct and circumstantial evidence in the record as a whole and is 
not required to accept a respondent's account where other plausible views of the evidence are 
supported by the record); see also Matter ofE-F-N-, 28 I&N Dec. 591, 593 (BIA 2022) (noting that 
we are not required to adopt an applicant's explanation for an inconsistency if there are other 
permissible views of the evidence based on the record). 
The Petitioner asserts if they actually intended to commit fraud, that all of their 223 H-1 B registrations 
would reflect overlap with the other entity's registrations instead of only 60 percent of them. We do 
not find that line of reasoning persuasive; that the petitioning organization must "go all-in" and intend 
to commit fraud in every filing instead of a majority of them. 
The Petitioner offers citations to several court cases. Some of the cases exist, but many do not. For 
those that are actual cases, the Petitioner did not explain how any of them addressed the issues present 
here while also making a ruling that would be favorable to the Petitioner's position. The Petitioner 
further cites a recent Supreme Court opinion, and the petitioning organization asserts the rules USCIS 
relied on to revoke this petition's approval "will be struck down by Federal Courts." However, we 
express no opinion on the speculative nature of the Petitioner's statements other than to make note of 
them and we recognize that our regulations remain valid until a proper authority deems them 
otherwise. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695-96 (1974) (finding that as long as regulations 
remain in force, they are binding on government officials). 
As it relates to the 2018 USCIS policy memorandum the Petitioner cites, that process is inapplicable 
to the current scenario as the agency promulgated regulations since that time introducing the current 
version of an electronic registration process, rather than the previous method of conducting a random 
lottery of cap-subject H-1 B petitions. 
In the appeal the Petitioner also questions the Director's jurisdiction. The Petitioner claims the Texas 
Service Center lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice of intent to revoke the petition's approval when 
the petitioning organization filed the petition with the Nebraska Service Center. First, there is no 
indication that the Texas Service Center issued either the notice of intent to revoke the petition's 
approval nor the actual revocation, as both bear the Nebraska Service Center's information in the cover 
page's header. 
Second, even if that were the case, the authority to make decisions on petitions is vested in the USCIS 
Director and delegated to their designees. So, filing an immigration benefit petition with one USCIS 
service center does not preclude another service center from adjudicative actions on that same petition. 
For instance, USCIS has historically performed workload transfers within the agency and no special 
2 
authority was necessary for the gaining office to adjudicate the respective forms. Workload Transfer 
Updates, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Dec. 18, 2023), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/ archive/workload- transfer-updates. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3