dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 06, 2025 In Re: 36682326 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a 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 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(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 California Service Center Director approved but 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.1 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 of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&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 l&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 observed the 
Petitioner worked with are separate legal entities 
among 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. The Director found the claims inadequate and revoked the petition's approval 
with a finding of fraud. The numerous linkages between the two entities present significant hurdles 
1 We note the Petitioner's brief refers to the Texas Service Center and the Nebraska Service Center alternatively when 
discussing the adjudication process in this matter and conclude the erroneous references are not material to the assertions 
the Petitioner advances on appeal. 
in the Petitioner's path. The Petitioner has not preponderantly demonstrated the Director's 
conclusions were erroneous, and its efforts to explain away the linkages fall flat. We agree with the 
Director that sufficient elements are present to support her 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 ajf'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. The trier of fact is 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 of Z­
Z-0-, 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 of E-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 ifthere 
are other permissible views of the evidence based on the record). 
The Petitioner further cites a recent United States Supreme Court opinion, and the pet1t10ning 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2