remanded H-1B Case: Database Administration

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21985913 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 28, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "database administrator" 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 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 denied the petition, stating that the Beneficiary did not work for 
the prior employer that filed the cap petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
misrepresented the work assignment at the time of filing the instant petition, and made a finding of 
fraud. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from its president and additional evidence, and asserts 
that it did not misrepresent the work assignment. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the 
Director's decision and remand the petition for further review of the record and a new decision. 
Upon review, while we acknowledge the Director's concerns regarding the Beneficiary not working 
for the prior employer and filing the instant petition to change employer, we note that the Director did 
not sufficiently explain the basis to support the finding of fraud. To find a willful and material 
misrepresentation of fact, an immigration officer must determine that (1) the petitioner or beneficiary 
made a false representation to an authorized official of the U.S. government, (2) the misrepresentation 
was willfully made, and (3) the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter of M-, 6 l&N Dec. 149 
(BIA 1954); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288,289 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means 
knowing and intentionally, as distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief 
that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 l&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). A 
"material" misrepresentation is one that "tends to shut off a line of inquiry relevant to the alien's 
eligibility." Matter of Ng, 17 l&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition 
proceedings, they must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation to 
an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the misrepresentation was willfully 
made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter of M-, 6 l&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); 
Matter of L-L-, 9 l&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 l&N Dec. at 288. 
Here, the Director concluded that the "work assignment ... at the time of filing the instant petition 
... is a willful misrepresentation," but the Director did not explain why it is willful misrepresentation 
and did not provide adequate analysis of the factors to support the finding of fraud. Further, the 
Director stated, "it is unlawful to forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document for the purpose 
of satisfying a requirement of the Act," but the Director did not discuss which fraudulent documents, 
if any, the Petitioner submitted in support of the instant petition. Since the Director did not properly 
analyze the factors outlined above to make a finding of fraud, we will withdraw the Director's finding 
of fraud. Further, the Director makes general conclusion stating that the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the requested classification and any requested status; however, the Director does not 
discuss in detail why evidence in the record is not sufficient to establish it. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(i) states that when denying a petition, the Director shall explain in writing the specific 
reasons for denial. 
We note that since filing of the appeal, the Beneficiary's cap petition was automatically revoked due 
to the prior employer's request to withdraw its petition. 
Since this is a petition that requests a change of employer, and an extension of stay from a cap petition, 
the Director should review the latest developments in the case to determine whether the Petitioner is 
eligible for the benefit requested and whether a finding of fraud or misrepresentation is warranted. If 
a finding of fraud or misrepresentation is warranted, the Director should provide proper analysis of 
the factors. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination and any other issues. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2