dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23244392 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 15, 2022 
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)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b) . 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 . 
Though the Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the H-lB petition, she revoked 
its approval when the Petitioner's financial institution did not honor all the checks it submitted to pay 
the petition's filing fees. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends that the petition's 
approval should be reinstated . 
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 nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 1 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
The regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii) states four conditions under which U.S . Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) will reject a benefit request, including when a filer's payment is 
dishonored as specified in subsection (D): 
Submitted with the correct fee(s). If a check or other financial instrument used to pay 
a fee is returned as unpayable because of insufficient funds, USCIS will resubmit the 
payment to the remitter institution one time. If the instrument used to pay a fee is 
1 We withdrew the Director 's decision and remanded the matter for further action on April 18, 2022. After further review, 
we reopened the matter on service motion on June 14, 2022 and, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(S)(ii), provided the 
Petitioner with a 33-day period during which to submit a brief and/or additional evidence if it so chose. The Petitioner 
submitted a brief and additional evidence, which we have reviewed. Today's decision takes the place of our April 18, 
2022 decision. 
returned as unpayable a second time, the filing may be rejected. Financial instruments 
returned as unpayable for a reason other than insufficient funds will not be redeposited. 
If a check or other financial instrument used to pay a fee is dated more than one year 
before the request is received, the payment and request may be rejected. 
On a related note, 8 C.F.R. § 106.l(c) states the following: 
If a remittance in payment of a fee or any other matter is not honored by the bank or 
financial institution on which it is drawn: 
(1) The provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii) apply, no receipt will be issued, and if 
a receipt was issued, it is void and the benefit request loses its receipt date; and 
(2) 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. 
When a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) a petition's approval is issued in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 106.l(c)(2), 1 USCIS Policy Manual B.6(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual, "Response to a 
NOIR," offers additional guidance. In relevant part, that provision states that "[t]o sufficiently respond 
to a NOIR, the requestor must demonstrate that the payment was honored or that it was rejected by 
USCIS by mistake." 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the petition on September 15, 2021. Because the Petitioner requested Premium 
Processing service, the Director adjudicated the petition quickly, and it was approved on September 
17, 2021. The Director subsequently issued a NOIR in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 106.l(c)(2) and 
1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.6(B), informing the Petitioner that its financial institution had not 
honored its payment. In the NOIR, the Director notified the Petitioner that unless it submitted evidence 
that its payment had in fact been valid, and that it had in fact been honored by the financial institution, 
the petition's approval would be revoked. The Director also told the Petitioner that it could not submit 
any form of repayment. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter from Counsel's paralegal stating that when she filed the 
petition, she requested Premium Processing service by mistake. The paralegal claimed that although 
she attempted to cancel the Premium Processing request, she was unable to do so since she did not yet 
have a receipt number. She explained that when she notified the Petitioner of what had happened, the 
Petitioner instructed her to cancel the check for Premium Processing. According to the Petitioner, the 
law firm cancelled the check on September 17, 2021 and "assumed that USCIS would simply process 
the petition under regular processing when it learned that the premium processing check had been 
2 
cancelled." The Petitioner submitted a new check to cover the Premium Processing service it had 
received and asked that the Director cash it. 
The Petitioner was not, however, able to submit what the Director had requested in the NOrR: evidence 
that the check had in fact been honored by the financial institution (because it was not). As indicated, 
the Petitioner instead explained why the check was not honored, and it submitted a new check and 
requested that the agency accept it. As this response did not overcome the revocation grounds 
specified in the NOrR, the Director revoked the petition's approval. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the petition's approval should be reinstated. The Petitioner 
states that it made an innocent mistake and takes issue with the Director's statement that it cannot 
simply submit a new check. It also requests that we weigh the negative impact of the revocation on 
the Petitioner and faults the Director for not doing so. The Petitioner also submits another check and 
requests that the agency cash it. 
We are not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments, and we conclude that the Director complied with 
users law and policy. The Director properly issued the NOrR because the Petitioner's financial 
institution dishonored its check, thereby triggering the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 106.1 ( c )(2). 2 And the 
Director's statement that the Petitioner may not submit any form ofrepayment was similarly correct, 
as it reflected the agency's articulation of policy at 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.6(B): "[t]o 
sufficiently respond to a NOrR, the requestor must demonstrate that the payment was honored or that 
it was rejected by users by mistake." Neither that subsection of the USCIS Policy Manual, nor 8 
C.F.R. § 106.l(c), make any provision for resubmission of payment. Nor are we persuaded by the 
earlier, implicit suggestion that the Director should have simply removed the petition from the 
Premium Processing queue: first, the Petitioner received the benefit of Premium Processing (the 
petition was approved two days after receipt), and second, the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 106.l(c)(2) 
specifically states that when a benefit request requires multiple fees (as was the case here), its 
provisions apply if "any" submitted fee is not honored. Id. 
We acknowledge that the dishonored payment does not appear to have involved ill intent on the part 
of the Petitioner, and we are sympathetic to the situation in which the Petitioner finds itself However, 
the Petitioner has identified no error oflaw or policy on the part of the Director. Nor do we find any. 
To the contrary, we conclude that the Director properly applied users law and policy. As a result, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 We do acknowledge that the Director's NOIR did not cite 8 C.F.R. § 106.l(c). While unfortunate, since the Director 
complied with the requirements of that provision, we find it to have been harmless error. 
3