U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new policy guidance after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) published a binding Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision in Matter of Texperts, Inc. The decision held that the agency is allowed to continue to make findings of fact relevant to an immigration benefit request, including fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact, after the request is withdrawn.
The BIA is the highest administrative body within the U.S. Department of Justice that reviews decisions of immigration judges and certain U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determinations to ensure uniform interpretation and application of U.S. immigration law. USCIS is a part of DHS. The AAO is the component of USCIS that conducts appellate review of certain immigration benefit decisions to ensure they are legally correct and consistent with agency policy.
As a result of this ruling, USCIS said it expects that more administrative findings will be determinative in future proceedings. Findings of fact are critical when a case involves fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact because such findings may have a direct bearing on eligibility for future immigration benefit requests, eligibility for discretionary relief, and admissibility determinations. Moreover, a party that commits fraud or willful misrepresentation may be criminally liable under numerous provisions of U.S. Code.
Matter of Texperts, Inc.
In this case, which was decided on March 6, 2026, a U.S. staffing company (Texperts, Inc.) filed an H-1B petition on behalf of an alien beneficiary after being selected in the H-1B lottery. During its review, however, USCIS identified indicators suggesting that the beneficiary may have been the subject of multiple coordinate registrations, a practice that can improperly increase the odds of selection and, if proven, may constitute fraud or willful misrepresentation.
In response, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny outlining its concerns and signaling that the petition could be denied on fraud-related grounds. In response, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition before USCIS issued a final decision. Typically, withdrawal ends adjudication of the benefit request.
USCIS, however, while acknowledging the petitioner’s withdrawal, simultaneously issued a decision making a formal fraud finding based on the record. That determination carried consequences beyond the withdrawn petition, including potential implications for the beneficiary’s future immigration filings and criminal liability.
The petitioner appealed the fraud finding, however, arguing that USCIS lacked authority to issue the finding after the case had been withdrawn. The AAO disagreed and preserved USCIS’s authority to document adverse findings even when a petition is no longer pending.
The AAO wrote, “Considering the statute and DHS regulations as a whole, it would severely undermine the integrity of United States immigration laws to permit a party to evade the immigration consequences of fraud or willful misrepresentations of material fact by simply withdrawing the benefit request once those consequences were imminent.” It further explained, “A request for withdrawal should not serve to improve a petitioner, applicant, or beneficiary’s posture when seeking future immigration benefits after an initial fraudulent attempt or after.”
USCIS Policy Guidance
As a result of the decision in Matter of Texperts, Inc., USCIS issued guidance to ensure that immigration officers know that they may make a finding of fact related to a petitioner’s attempt to get a visa or grant of status by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact after the petitioner has withdrawn the petition. USCIS reminded officers that, “Because USCIS officers generally must issue a notice of derogatory information before a denial or revocation, many petitioners and applicants choose to withdraw a benefit request rather than contest the allegation of fraud or willful misrepresentation.”
Moreover, USCIS advised immigration officers to use the terms “fraud” and “willful misrepresentation” in their adjudications with specificity. The guidance instructs officers to “clearly and precisely state whether an action involved fraud or willful misrepresentation”. It went further to emphasize that officers should examine cases for willful misrepresentation of a material fact rather than fraud, “because the elements for willful misrepresentation are easier to prove and defend in DHS adjudications”.
Why This Matters
The decision in Matter of Texperts, Inc. allows USCIS to more forcefully address fraud and carries significant implications for employers, beneficiaries, and practitioners navigating the H-1B process. First, it makes clear that withdrawing a petition does not negate a party’s illegal conduct or insulate the party from an adverse finding. USCIS may still document fraud or willful misrepresentation findings, and those findings can follow the beneficiary or petitioner (depending on the culpable actor) into future filings, admissibility determinations, and even enforcement contexts.
Importantly, this decision also reinforces USCIS’s institutional interest in preserving the integrity of its immigration benefit programs, including the H-1B program. By allowing post-withdrawal findings, the AAO effectively ensures that suspected immigration benefit abuse, including collusive multiple filings (in the H-1B context), can be documented and deterred, even when a petitioner attempts to exit the process midstream. Strategic withdrawal is no longer a reliable tool for avoiding downstream consequences for illegal conduct.