Can USCIS Make a Fraud Finding After H-1B Withdrawal? TEXPERTS Explained
Withdrawing an H-1B petition may end the request for approval without ending the consequences of what was submitted. In Matter of TEXPERTS, INC., 29 I&N Dec. 491 (AAO 2026), the Administrative Appeals Office addressed whether USCIS could acknowledge a withdrawal and still issue a finding of fraud. It held that the agency could preserve findings relevant to future applications, but that those findings needed a reasoned explanation tied to the legal requirements.
The result was a remand, not an approval or a determination that the company had done nothing wrong. The AAO withdrew the Director’s fraud finding because the analysis was inadequate. The petition itself remained withdrawn. Originally entered on September 16, 2025, the decision was revised for designation as precedent on March 6, 2026.
Why a withdrawn petition still produced an appeal
TEXPERTS, an information technology staffing company, sought H-1B classification for a database administrator. After the registration was selected and the petition filed, USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny. The agency believed TEXPERTS had coordinated with ConquerTech Innovations, LLC to submit registrations that unfairly increased the beneficiary’s chances of selection.
The Director identified common ownership and management, the same HR manager, submissions from the same IP address, and similarly worded contingent employment offers created and signed on the same dates. These were facts raising concern, rather than a substitute for determining whether the elements of fraud were established. The details appear in footnote 4 on page 492.
The company attempted to rebut the allegations while withdrawing its petition. USCIS acknowledged the withdrawal but also concluded that the company had perpetrated fraud by violating its registration attestation. The company appealed that separate adverse finding.
How withdrawal affects adjudication and the record
On page 493, the AAO quoted 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(6), which permits a benefit requestor to withdraw before a decision is issued. A valid withdrawal generally prevents USCIS from then denying that petition on its merits. But paragraph (b)(15) preserves the relevance of the underlying facts and circumstances to later benefit requests.
Reading those provisions together, the AAO concluded that USCIS could document fraud or willful misrepresentation after withdrawal. Otherwise, withdrawal following exposure of a problem could prevent the agency from preserving information relevant to future proceedings. A withdrawal therefore does not erase the petition, supporting documents, or prior representations.
The decision also separates the company’s conduct from the beneficiary’s responsibility. On page 494, it explains why findings should clarify whose conduct supports the potential consequences. An employer’s adverse finding does not, by itself, resolve whether the beneficiary knowingly made a material misrepresentation.
The appeal concerned the fraud finding, not the acknowledgment
The regulation states: “The USCIS acknowledgement of a withdrawal may not be appealed.” The AAO nevertheless found jurisdiction here because the separate fraud finding constituted an adverse action involving the materiality of a representation to a visa petition within its general jurisdiction. See page 493.
That distinction matters when assessing a notice. A document merely acknowledging withdrawal presents a different procedural question from one that also makes an independent adverse finding. TEXPERTS does not create a general appeal right from every withdrawal acknowledgment.
Fraud and willful material misrepresentation require different analyses
The AAO looked to the standards applied under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). That provision identifies fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact as separate grounds. Both require a willfully made representation material to eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. Fraud also requires additional elements, including an intent to deceive and the deceived party’s belief in and detrimental action on the representation. See pages 495–496.
The distinction is substantive. A record may support willful material misrepresentation even when the additional requirements for fraud have not been established. Conversely, an officer who chooses to find fraud must explain how the evidence supports those additional requirements. On page 497, the AAO cautioned that the terms “are not synonyms.”
Here, the Director recited concerning facts but did not analyze the specific elements or adequately connect those facts to the conclusion. The AAO required a reasoned explanation that would permit meaningful review. It did not dismiss the shared ownership, registration activity, or employment documents as irrelevant.
The scope of the remand
The AAO withdrew the fraud finding and returned the matter to the Director. On remand, USCIS could issue a new acknowledgment with properly articulated findings concerning fraud or willful material misrepresentation. The AAO expressly stated on page 498 that “the petition itself shall remain withdrawn.”
The remand thus corrected the reasoning underlying an adverse finding without reopening the withdrawn petition for approval. The AAO also explained that the Director need not pursue the more demanding fraud standard if the record instead supports willful material misrepresentation. Either may have immigration consequences, depending on the applicable provision and the person whose conduct is established.
Two procedural protections also deserve attention. Footnote 6 on page 495 preserves an opportunity to rebut adverse findings if USCIS relies on them in a later adjudication. Footnote 8 on page 497 emphasizes notice procedures when similarities across different filings support a finding. The practical focus is therefore both the substance of the evidence and a fair opportunity to address it.
Applying the decision without confusing past and current registration rules
TEXPERTS arose from a registration dispute under an earlier selection framework. Footnote 3 on page 492 describes the beneficiary-centric selection process introduced in 2024, under which multiple proper employer registrations for one beneficiary should not multiply that person’s selection chances. Because registration procedures have changed, employers should verify the rules and attestations applicable to the filing at issue.
For a petitioner considering withdrawal after a notice of intent to deny, the decision identifies the issues that remain: what representations were made, who made them, whether they were knowing and material, and whether USCIS has explained the legal basis for an adverse finding. In footnote 5 on page 494, the AAO also found that this withdrawal, made after the alleged problem had been exposed, was not a voluntary and timely retraction. Withdrawing and retracting a misrepresentation are separate questions.
An effective response must address the actual allegations and documents. It should distinguish an asserted factual error from a disputed legal inference and identify any gap between the record and the agency’s conclusion. Whether to respond, withdraw, or challenge a separate finding requires an assessment of the complete record, the available procedure, and the consequences for both employer and beneficiary.
Legal Disclaimer. Originally published: 11/01/2026. This article provides general information only and is not legal advice for any particular matter. Laws, policies, procedures, fees and agency practices may change; their application depends on the facts and jurisdiction. Consult a qualified attorney about your circumstances before acting on this information. Reading this article or contacting Blumsack & Canzano does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
