remanded H-1B Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 16, 2024 In Re: 33567558 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of the petition with a finding of 
fraud because they concluded the Petitioner submitted multiple H-lB cap registrations in concert with 
another registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to unfairly increase the chance of the 
Beneficiary's selection. 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 I&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. REVOCATION 
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)(l) and the applicable form instructions to render a petitioner eligible to file an H-lB 
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. lfUSCIS 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), users 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 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). 
Moreover, users may revoke the approval of an H-lB petition pursuant to 8 e.F.R. 
§ 214.2(h)(l 1 )(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 ... was not true and correct, 
inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresented a material fact; or 
(3) The petition violated terms and conditions of the approved petition; or 
(4) The petitioner violated requirements of section 101 (a)( 15)(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 users provide notice consisting of a detailed statement of the grounds 
for revocation and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the notice of intent. 
The Director's statements in the notice of intent to revoke (ITR) notified the Petitioner of the reasons 
for revocation and afforded them an opportunity to respond. After the Petitioner's response, the 
Director revoked the petition's approval. The Petitioner now appeals the Director's revocation of the 
petition's approval. 
II. ANALYSrS 
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the Director did not sufficiently articulate the grounds to 
revoke the petition based upon the Petitioner's potential collusion with other entities to unfairly 
increase the chances of the Beneficiary's selection in the H-1 B registration process or the related 
finding of fraud. 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. 
As stated above, the Director concluded the Petitioner worked with another registrant, petitioner, 
agent, or other individual or entity to submit a H-lB cap registration to unfairly increase the chance of 
selection for the Beneficiary. Specifically, the Director observed several factors upon review ofH-lB 
cap registration data. users records, open sources, and other resources that demonstrated the 
corporate relationship between the Petitioner and ________ and the coordination 
2 
between the two entities to submit 68 overlapping H-lB cap registrations for the same beneficiaries. 
The two entities used the same IP address to submit their cap registration, utilized the same authorized 
signatory, and listed the same contact phone number. The Director afforded the Petitioner an 
opportunity in their ITR to submit evidence demonstrating the Petitioner did not work with another 
registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to submit a H-1 B cap registration to unfairly 
increase the chance of selection for the Beneficiary. 
In its response to the ITR, the Petitioner did not rebut its relationship with ______ And 
in an unswom statement submitted with this appeal, the Petitioner's representative stated that the 
Petitioner decided to submit 68 overlapping H-1 B registrations in concert with ______ 
relying on the "guidance, expertise, and experience" of the "competent" corporate immigration 
counsel it shared with ________ The Petitioner asserted in its response to the ITR 
and on appeal that 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) permits related entities to submit multiple H-lB 
petitions on behalf of the same noncitizen provided that a legitimate business need exists to do so and 
submitted supporting evidence focused primarily on establishing a bona fide job offer and legitimate 
business need for the proffered position contained in the registration. The Director's decision 
concluded that the Petitioner and I I corporate relationship and submission of 
68 registrations for the same beneficiaries were sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's work and 
coordination with another registrant, petitioner, agent, or other individual or entity to submit a H-lB 
cap registration to unfairly increase the chance of selection for this Beneficiary and the other 
beneficiaries for whom they submitted registrations. In their decision, the Director reminded the 
Petitioner of the website instructions for the H-1 B registration process, which advise petitioners of the 
attestation that the registrant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the registration reflects a 
legitimate job offer, and that the registrant has not worked with other entities or individuals to unfairly 
increase the chances of selection for the beneficiary of the submission. Additionally, the instructions 
state that: 
If users 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), users will 
find that registration to not be properly submitted. Since the registration was not 
properly submitted, the prospective petitioner would not be eligible to file a petition 
based on that registration in accordance with the regulatory language at 8 CFR 
§ 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(l). users may deny or revoke a petition based on a registration 
that contained a false attestation and was therefore not properly submitted. 
The Director also advised the Petitioner that 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) requires that every benefit request 
be submitted in accordance with the form instructions, and further that the website instructions here 
function as form instructions within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1.2. The Director further recognized 
the Petitioner and legitimate job offer and business need underpinning its 
registrations but noted that 8 e.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) did not apply to permit the Petitioner's 
collaboration with because the regulation pertains to "petitions" and not 
"registrations." 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that, because the H-lB registration process is currently required for 
H-1 B petitions subject to the cap, if it is permitted for related entities to file multiple petitions in the 
3 
same fiscal year when there is a legitimate business need, there must be the same allowance for the 
filing of multiple registrations, otherwise the regulation would be meaningless. The Petitioner also 
maintains that it had no intent to deceive, that it intended to certify the attestation truthfully, and 
therefore did not commit fraud. 
We are sympathetic to the Director's concerns regarding the submission of these H-lB registrations. 
The Petitioner and ________ submitted 68 overlapping registrations, are related 
entities, and have stated that they knowingly submitted the common registrations including the one in 
this matter. Nevertheless, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this matter because the Director 
did not provide sufficient notice of the specific grounds for revocation based upon this information. 
Instead, the Director reminded the Petitioner of the website instructions for the H-lB registration 
process, which advise petitioners of the attestation that the registrant certifies, under penalty of perjury, 
that the registration reflects a legitimate job offer and that the registrant has not worked with other 
entities or individuals to unfairly increase the chances of selection for the beneficiary of the 
submission. 
The revocation regulations require that the Director provide a petitioner a detailed statement of the 
specific grounds for revocation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A) and (B). We conclude that the 
Director has not done so here. Although the Director reminded the Petitioner of the attestation that it 
certified in submitting its H-lB registrations, the Director did not sufficiently notify the Petitioner of 
the grounds for revocation under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(ll)(iii)(A) and (B), for example, that the 
approval of the petition violated the requirements of section 10l(a)(15)(H) of the Act or paragraph (h) 
of 8 C.F .R. § 214.2 or that it involved gross error. 
Additionally, we recognize that the Director has concluded that both the Petitioner and II I filed their overlapping H-lB registrations based upon legitimate job offers, but that 
the Petitioner nevertheless did not truthfully certify the required attestation. The Director interprets 
the attestation to entirely prohibit related entities from working together to submit multiple 
registrations for the same beneficiary-regardless of the existence oflegitimate job offers or legitimate 
business needs-because this will per se unfairly increase the chances of that beneficiary's selection. 
But based upon the unsworn statement submitted on appeal, the Director may wish to consider whether 
the evidence supports the conclusion that each of the overlapping H-1 B registrations, including the 
one in this matter, reflects a legitimate job offer. 
Separately, we also conclude that the Director did not sufficiently articulate a basis to support the 
finding of fraud. As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, 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. See Matter ofKai 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 ofHealy 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). 
4 
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 Matter ofM-, 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 
deciding 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 
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 previously approved petition based upon the finding that the 
Petitioner worked with another entity or entities to submit multiple H-lB registrations to unfairly 
increase the chances of selection for the Beneficiary is withdrawn, as is the finding of fraud based 
upon this ground. The Director may choose to consider our observations as they evaluate the record. 
And if appropriate the Director may issue an ITR that sufficiently articulates a ground or grounds to 
revoke the petition. We express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
5