Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO withdrew the Director's revocation and fraud finding because the Director failed to provide the petitioner with sufficient notice of all the factual grounds for revocation and did not adequately analyze the required elements for a fraud determination. The case was remanded for a new decision with proper notice and analysis.
A U.S. employer's H-1B petition was revoked by the California Service Center after USCIS found that the petitioner and a related company submitted 68 overlapping H-1B registrations for the same beneficiary using the same IP address and authorized signatory, suggesting collusion to unfairly increase lottery selection odds. The AAO withdrew the revocation and fraud finding on remand because the Director's Notice of Intent to Revoke did not include all factual allegations ultimately relied upon — depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to respond — and the fraud determination failed to apply the required legal framework from BIA case law and USCIS policy. While the AAO expressed sympathy with USCIS's concerns and noted that new evidence on appeal undercut the petitioner's legitimate-business-need argument, it required proper procedural steps before any revocation can stand. The case was sent back for a new decision with adequate notice and analysis.
What worked: The petitioner successfully argued that the Director's NOIR was procedurally deficient because it omitted key factual allegations that later appeared in the final revocation decision, giving the petitioner no chance to respond. The petitioner also correctly identified that the Director failed to apply the required legal elements for a fraud finding.
What failed: The petitioner's core substantive defense — that each overlapping registration reflected a separate legitimate job offer — was undercut by the HR affidavit submitted on appeal, which indicated only 68 total job opportunities shared across both entities, not 68 separate offers per entity. The AAO signaled this weakens the petitioner's position on remand.
Takeaway: When USCIS issues a Notice of Intent to Revoke for alleged H-1B registration fraud, it must disclose all factual grounds it intends to rely upon so the petitioner can respond; if it does not, the AAO will withdraw the decision. However, petitioners should be cautious: affidavits submitted on appeal that contradict the legitimate-business-need defense can damage the case even when a remand is granted.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating H-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully argued that the Director's NOIR was procedurally deficient because it omitted key factual allegations that later appeared in the final revocation decision, giving the petitioner no chance to respond
- The petitioner also correctly identified that the Director failed to apply the required legal elements for a fraud finding.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner's core substantive defense — that each overlapping registration reflected a separate legitimate job offer — was undercut by the HR affidavit submitted on appeal, which indicated only 68 total job opportunities shared across both entities, not 68 separate offers per entity
- The AAO signaled this weakens the petitioner's position on remand.
Petitioner's acknowledgment that it and the related entity submitted 68 overlapping H-1B registrations using the same authorized signatory
HR employee affidavit submitted on appeal, which the AAO noted undermined the claim that each overlapping registration was based on a separate legitimate job offer
Petitioner's claim that both related entities each had 68 separate legitimate job offers — the affidavit instead indicated a total of 68 opportunities shared between the entities
Petitioner's argument that regulatory permission for related-entity multiple filings under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(2)(i)(G) automatically negated any collusion concern
Director did not provide a detailed statement of all specific grounds for revocation in the NOIR — several factual allegations relied upon in the final revocation decision (e.g., 68 overlapping registrations, similarities in petition filings, failure of related entity to file a petition after selection) were not included in the NOIR, denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
Director did not sufficiently articulate the basis for the fraud finding — failed to apply the required elements of willful and material misrepresentation as set out in BIA case law and USCIS Policy Manual, including intent to deceive and the government official's reliance on the false representation.
Completed
I-129 filed
Manufacturing engineer
Completed
California Service Center — Revoked (with fraud finding)
Initial decision: Revoked (with fraud finding).
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-01-21
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO withdrew the Director's revocation and fraud finding because the Director failed to provide the petitioner with sufficient notice of all the factual grounds for revocation and did not adequately analyze the required elements for a fraud determination. The case was remanded for a new decision with proper notice and analysis.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee