dismissed H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 11, 2025 In Re: 36695347 
Appeal of Texas 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. § 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 Texas 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo '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 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 and the 
Director found them inadequate and revoked the petition's approval with a finding of fraud. The 
record establishes multiple connections between the two entities and the Director explained how those 
links led to the determination of fraud. The Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, that the Director's conclusions were incorrect. We agree with the Director that sufficient 
elements exist to support the 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 of 
M-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 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 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). 
In summary, the Director's revocation will stand and the Petitioner has failed to adequately 
demonstrate they erred in revoking the petition's approval. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2