March 9, 2026
Executive Summary
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has designated Matter of TEXPERTS, Inc., 29 I&N Dec. 491 (AAO 2026) as a precedent decision addressing fraud and willful misrepresentation in the H-1B cap registration process. The decision clarifies that withdrawing an H-1B petition does not prevent USCIS from issuing findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation if the agency believes the petition involved improper conduct, including coordination between companies to increase H-1B lottery selection chances.
At the same time, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) emphasized that USCIS must clearly explain the legal basis for any fraud or misrepresentation finding and demonstrate how the evidence satisfies the required legal elements.
Although the case arose in the H-1B cap registration context, the AAO’s reasoning is based on general USCIS regulations governing immigration benefit requests and petition withdrawals, meaning the precedent may influence how the agency addresses fraud or misrepresentation findings in other employment-based and family-based immigration filings.
This precedent is expected to influence how USCIS investigates H-1B registration practices, how employers respond to Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs), and how immigration practitioners advise companies participating in the H-1B cap registration process.
Background: H-1B Petition Withdrawal and Fraud Allegations
The case involved an H-1B cap petition filed by an information technology staffing company for a database administrator position. After the H-1B registration for the beneficiary was selected in the cap lottery, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny alleging that the petitioner coordinated with another company to submit multiple H-1B registrations for the same beneficiary in order to increase the chances of lottery selection.
USCIS cited several indicators suggesting possible coordination between the companies, including:
- registrations submitted from the same internet protocol (IP) address
- corporate records suggesting common ownership or management
- the same human resources manager submitting both registrations
- similar contingent employment offer letters prepared on the same day
- both offer letters signed by the beneficiary on the same date
Rather than proceed with the adjudication, the petitioner withdrew the H-1B petition while attempting to rebut the allegations. USCIS acknowledged the withdrawal but issued a notice stating that the petitioner had committed fraud by falsely attesting that it had not worked with another entity to unfairly increase the beneficiary’s chances of selection.
The petitioner appealed the fraud finding to the AAO.
Key Holding: USCIS May Make Fraud Findings After Petition Withdrawal
The AAO held that USCIS may acknowledge the withdrawal of a petition while still issuing findings of fact related to fraud or willful misrepresentation.
Historically, petition withdrawal often ended the adjudication process without a formal determination on the merits. The AAO clarified that while USCIS cannot deny a petition after withdrawal, the agency may document findings relevant to potential fraud because those findings may affect future immigration benefit requests.
The decision notes that such findings may be relevant to:
- future H-1B petitions and other employment-based immigration filings
- revocation proceedings
- inadmissibility determinations under U.S. immigration law
- other enforcement or compliance actions
The AAO emphasized that allowing petitioners to avoid the consequences of potential fraud simply by withdrawing a petition would undermine the integrity of the U.S. immigration system and the H-1B program.
Important Limitation: USCIS Must Clearly Analyze Fraud or Misrepresentation
Although the AAO confirmed that USCIS may issue findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation after a petition withdrawal, it also ruled that the agency must clearly explain the legal basis for such findings.
The AAO noted that immigration law distinguishes between fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud generally requires proof of intent to deceive and reliance on the misrepresentation, while willful misrepresentation focuses on whether a material fact was knowingly misstated to obtain an immigration benefit.
In this case, the USCIS decision described facts raising concerns about possible coordination between companies but did not clearly analyze how those facts satisfied the legal elements required to establish fraud or willful misrepresentation.
Because of this lack of analysis, the AAO withdrew the fraud finding and remanded the case to USCIS for further proceedings and a properly articulated determination.
Implications for H-1B Registration Compliance
This precedent decision reflects USCIS’s ongoing focus on H-1B program integrity and the prevention of registration manipulation.
The ruling signals that USCIS may continue to investigate situations where multiple companies submit H-1B registrations for the same beneficiary under circumstances suggesting coordination. This may include scrutiny of related corporate entities, shared personnel involved in preparing registrations, or identical job offer documentation.
At the same time, the decision confirms that USCIS must support fraud or misrepresentation findings with a clear legal analysis and a rational connection between the evidence and the agency’s conclusions.
Petition withdrawal may not eliminate fraud exposure
Employers should be aware that withdrawing an H-1B petition after receiving a Notice of Intent to Deny may not prevent USCIS from issuing findings related to fraud or misrepresentation.
H-1B registration practices will continue to face scrutiny
USCIS has increased its focus on detecting improper coordination in the H-1B cap registration process. Employers should ensure that each registration reflects a legitimate job opportunity and is submitted independently.
Responses to USCIS fraud allegations require careful strategy
When USCIS raises concerns in an RFE or NOID involving fraud or misrepresentation, employers should carefully evaluate their response strategy. The administrative record created during the adjudication may affect future filings.
Recommended Employer Action Steps
Goel & Anderson recommends that employers take the following steps:
- Review internal H-1B registration procedures to ensure compliance with USCIS rules prohibiting coordinated registrations.
- Assess corporate structures where related entities may submit H-1B registrations for the same beneficiary.
- Maintain documentation supporting independent hiring decisions and legitimate job offers.
- Consult immigration counsel promptly if USCIS raises concerns regarding fraud or misrepresentation in the H-1B process.
- Evaluate response strategies carefully when addressing RFEs or NOIDs involving H-1B cap registration issues.
How Goel & Anderson Can Help
Our team assists employers with:
- H-1B cap registration compliance and program integrity reviews
- responding to USCIS RFEs and NOIDs involving fraud or misrepresentation allegations
- defending H-1B petitions and appeals before the Administrative Appeals Office
- developing employer compliance strategies for H-1B programs
Please contact a Goel & Anderson attorney if you have questions about H-1B cap compliance, USCIS fraud investigations, or the potential impact of this precedent decision on your workforce planning.
Disclaimer
This alert is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Employers should consult counsel regarding their specific workforce needs and compliance obligations.
