remanded H-1B Case: Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2025 In Re: 35756614 
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-IB 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)(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. 
The Director of the California Service Center revoked the approval of the petition with a finding of 
fraud, concluding that the Petitioner violated statutory or regulatory requirements as proscribed by 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(iii)(A)( 4) because it did not rebut the evidence that showed that it worked with 
another entity to unfairly increase the chances of the Beneficiary's selection in the H-lB registration 
process. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
To ensure a fair and equitable allocation of the available H-lB visas in any given fiscal year, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has instituted the registration requirement contained 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(i). A petitioner must register to file a petition on behalf of a non­
citizen beneficiary electronically and a registration must be properly submitted pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2( a )(1) and the applicable form instructions to render a petitioner eligible to file an H-1 B 
petition. 
A petitioner submitting a registration is required to attest under penalty of perjury that they have not 
worked with or agreed to work with another registrant, petition, agent, or other individual or entity to 
submit a registration to unfairly increase the chances of selection for the beneficiary in that specific 
registration. IfUSCIS finds that this attestation was not true and correct (for example, that a company 
worked with another entity to submit multiple registrations for the same beneficiary to unfairly 
increase chances of selection for that beneficiary), USCIS will find that the registration was not 
properly submitted. This renders a petitioner ineligible to file a petition based on that registration 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). 
Moreover, USCIS may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l l)(iii), which states the following: 
(A) Grounds for revocation. The director shall send to the petitioner a notice of intent 
to revoke the petition in relevant part if he or she finds that: 
(1) The beneficiary is no longer employed by the petitioner in the capacity 
specified in the petition ... ; or 
(2) The statement of facts contained in the petition or the application for a 
temporary labor certification was not true and correct, inaccurate, 
fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petitioner violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( l 5)(H) of the Act or 
paragraph (h) of this section; or 
(5) The approval of the petition violated paragraph (h) of this section or 
involved gross error. 
The regulations require that USCIS provide notice consisting of a detailed statement of the grounds 
for revocation of the petition approval and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the 
notice of intent to revoke. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(l l)(iii)(B). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the underlying petition on behalf of the Beneficiary seeking new employment and 
requesting consideration under the H-lB numerical limitation (H-lB cap). After initially approving 
the petition, the Director notified the Petitioner ofUSCIS' intent to revoke the approval of the petition, 
with a finding of fraud, through a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR). The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner's response to the NOIR did not sufficiently rebut the derogatory information and 
accordingly revoked the petition's approval with a finding of fraud. The Petitioner now appeals the 
Director's revocation of the petition's approval. 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the revocation of the petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(iii)(A)( 4), based upon the evidence that the Petitioner worked with another entity to 
unfairly increase the chances of the Beneficiary's selection in the H-1 B registration process, will stand. 
However, we also conclude that the Director did not sufficiently articulate the finding of fraud based 
2 
upon this revocation ground. For that reason, we will withdraw the Director's finding of fraud and 
remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the analysis below. 
The Director advised the Petitioner in the NOIR that it appeared that the Petitioner worked with 
another entity to submit multiple H-lB registrations to unfairly increase the chances of selection for 
the Beneficiary, and that it therefore falsely certified the attestation made in the submission of its H-1 B 
registration. 1 Specifically, the Director asserted that the Petitioner is related to and worked with 
another company, to file multiple registrations for the 
Beneficiary to unfairly increase the chances of selection. The Director stated that this conclusion was 
based on users records which show that the Petitioner and I I both used the same individual 
as their authorized signatory on these submissions as well as their H-1 B petition filings, and that the 
registrations were submitted from the same IP address. Based upon this information, the Director 
further advised the Petitioner that users intended to revoke the petition approval with a finding of 
fraud. 
The Petitioner responded to the NOIR, acknowledging that I I is a related entity and that the 
companies use the same authorized signatory for its H-lB registrations. The Petitioner asserted, 
however, that the fact of a corporate affiliation between two entities that both file an H-1 B registration 
for the same beneficiary is not sufficient to demonstrate willful misrepresentation, fraud, an intent to 
deceive, or collusion. The Petitioner pointed to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) which 
permits the filing of multiple H-lB petitions by related entities in the same fiscal year, so long as there 
is a legitimate business need for the multiple filings. The Petitioner asserted that both it andl I 
have legitimate business needs for the systems engineer position that was offered to the Beneficiary 
and was the basis for the multiple H-1B registrations. The Petitioner stated that the attestation it made 
in submitting the H-lB registration for the Beneficiary was therefore true and correct. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner asserted that there is no basis in law for the revocation of the approval. 
The Director concluded that this response was insufficient. The Director discussed the evidence 
submitted in response to the NOIR but concluded that the Petitioner did not provide any evidence to 
support its claim that both it andl !submitted their H-1B registrations based upon separate, 
legitimate business needs. The Director further noted that the H-lB petitions filed by the Petitioner 
andl Iincluded nearly identical documentation, that the entities were represented by the same 
counsel, and that the Petitioner andl I submitted 68 overlapping registrations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and an additional affidavit from a human resources employee 
ofl Iwho acted as the authorized signatory on the H-1B registration submissions for both 
entities. The Petitioner contends that the Director erred by not following the proper procedure required 
for making a finding of fraud and further maintains that it had no intent to deceive, that it intended to 
certify the attestation truthfully, and therefore did not commit fraud. 
1 At the time of submission, the H-1 B registration form required certifying the following attestation: "I further certify that 
this registration ( or these registrations) reflects a legitimate job offer and that I, or the organization on whose behalf this 
registration ( or these registrations) is being submitted, have not worked with, or agreed to work with, another registrant, 
petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to submit a registration to unfairly increase chances of selection for the 
beneficiary or beneficiaries in this submission." 
3 
I 
In the affidavit submitted on appeal, the human resources employee states that the Petitioner was 
advised by immigration counsel to file the 68 overlapping H-lB registrations for "each candidate 
under bothl I and [the Petitioner]," although initially the Petitioner had planned that only the 
Petitioner would submit these H-lB registrations, and not both entities. The employee states that 
previously, it would submit H-1 B registrations "for candidates under either [ the Petitioner] or 
I not both." 
We agree with the Director's concerns regarding the submission of these H-lB registrations. The 
Petitioner andl I submitted 68 overlapping registrations, are related entities, and have stated 
that they knowingly submitted the common registrations including the one in this matter. 
Additionally, while not part of the record considered by the Director, the affidavit submitted on appeal 
does not support the conclusion that the Petitioner andl leach had 68 separate, legitimate job 
offers, but rather that the entities had a total of 68 job opportunities between them. This, in tum, 
undermines the Petitioner's claim that each of the overlapping registrations were based on legitimate 
job offers. The Director's statements in the NOIR were sufficient to notify the Petitioner of the intent 
to revoke the petition in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A)(4), and the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence to overcome the derogatory information. This necessitates the revocation 
of the petition's approval. 
Nevertheless, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this matter because the Director did not 
sufficiently articulate a basis to support the finding of fraud. As outlined by the Board of Immigration 
Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that an individual willfully make a material 
misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit to which 
one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (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 ofTijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); 
Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the 
misrepresentation must be one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the foreign 
national's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be 
excluded." Matter ofNg, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition 
proceedings, he or she 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 MatterofM-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); 
Matter ofL-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 289-90. 
Additionally, the USCIS Policy Manual provides the framework for fraud determinations including 
the specific elements which must be established to sustain a finding of fraud. See generally 8 USCIS 
Policy Manual J.2(C), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. This includes the immigration officer 
making a determination that the individual or petitioner, when making the false representation, had 
the intent to deceive a U.S. government official authorized to act upon the request and that the U.S. 
government official believed and acted upon the false representation. 
In the instant matter, despite the valid concerns relating to the legitimacy of the H-lB registration, the 
Director did not provide an adequate analysis of these factors to support the finding of fraud. The 
4 
Director did not discuss the specific framework for making a fraud determination as provided by 
administrative case law and USCIS policy guidance and did not apply the facts of the instant matter 
to each of the required elements in the framework. Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's finding 
of fraud. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Director's revocation of the petition's approval remains undisturbed. However, we withdraw the 
Director's finding of fraud and remand the matter to the Director for proper analysis of this issue. We 
express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision on the fraud finding is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for 
the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5