The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) ruled, through Matter of Texperts, Inc., 29 I&N Dec. 491 (AAO 2026), that withdrawing an immigration petition doesn’t end the agency’s ability to issue decisions against the petitioner. Per the AAO, USCIS can’t deny a petition on the merits after it’s withdrawn. However, the agency can issue findings of fact relevant to future immigration benefit requests. This includes findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. This is an important development for employers, foreign nationals, and immigration practitioners. The ruling confirms that withdrawal isn’t a reliable way to avoid the longer-term consequences of a case that has already drawn fraud-related scrutiny.
Case Background
The case arose in the H-1B cap registration context. The petitioner, an information technology staffing company, filed an H-1B petition for a database administrator after selection. USCIS later issued a Notice of Intent to Deny. The notice alleged the petitioner coordinated with another company to submit multiple registrations for the same beneficiary in order to unfairly increase the chances of selection. USCIS pointed to several indicators in the record, including:
- That the registrations were submitted from the same IP address.
- Corporate records suggested common ownership or management.
- The same human resources manager handled both registrations.
- The contingent job offer letters were nearly identical and prepared on the same day.
- Both letters were signed by the beneficiary on the same date.
Rather than continue with the adjudication, the petitioner withdrew the petition while also attempting to rebut the allegations. USCIS acknowledged the withdrawal. However, it entered a finding that the petitioner had committed fraud by falsely attesting that it hadn’t coordinated with another entity to increase the beneficiary’s lottery chances.
Decision Details
On appeal, the AAO addressed a question with broad significance. USCIS can’t deny a petition once withdrawn. At the same time, the AAO held that the agency is still permitted to make factual findings for the record, including findings related to fraud or willful misrepresentation, when those findings may affect future benefit requests. The AAO reasoned that immigration laws and regulations would be undermined if a petitioner, applicant, or beneficiary could escape the consequences of fraud or willful misrepresentation simply by withdrawing a filing once adverse information came to light. In other words, the agency may preserve those facts for future use even when the underlying petition itself is no longer being adjudicated.
At the same time, the AAO placed an important limit on USCIS. It made clear that fraud and willful misrepresentation are serious legal findings with potentially severe immigration consequences, and therefore the agency must clearly explain the legal basis for those conclusions. The AAO emphasized that fraud and willful misrepresentation are not interchangeable terms. A finding of fraud generally requires more. It requires not only a false statement about a material fact, but also an intent to deceive and reliance by the government on the deception.
Willful misrepresentation of a material fact, while slightly different, still requires a knowing false statement that is material to eligibility for the immigration benefit. USCIS merely listed suspicious facts without clearly analyzing how those facts satisfied the legal elements of fraud or willful misrepresentation. Therefore, the AAO withdrew the fraud finding and remanded the matter for a new and properly reasoned determination.
Impact
This part of the decision is especially important. The AAO didn’t say USCIS erred in investigating or even wrong to consider issuing a fraud-related finding after withdrawal. Instead, it said USCIS must do the legal work carefully and precisely. The agency must identify whether it is making a fraud finding or a willful misrepresentation finding, and it must tie the evidence in the record to the required legal elements. The AAO specifically noted that a finding must contain enough detail to show a rational connection between the evidence and the conclusion.
That requirement matters because these findings may later affect eligibility for temporary visas, immigrant petitions, adjustment of status, admissibility, discretionary relief, revocation proceedings, and other future immigration benefits. The AAO also recognized that in some cases the consequences may fall more directly on the petitioner, while in others they may affect the foreign national beneficiary, so precision is essential.
Although Matter of Texperts arose from an H-1B registration dispute, its reasoning goes beyond H-1B filings. The AAO rooted its analysis in general USCIS regulations governing withdrawals and in the broader legal treatment of fraud and willful misrepresentation under the Immigration and Nationality Act. That means the decision may influence how USCIS approaches fraud-related issues in I-140 petitions, family-based petitions, adjustment of status applications, and other immigration filings where the agency believes that a false statement or improper conduct may have occurred. For employers and practitioners, this means that the administrative record created in one matter stay relevant long after the petition’s withdrawal.
Main Takeaways
The practical lesson is clear. Withdrawing a petition after a Notice of Intent to Deny doesn’t make the fraud issue disappear. Employers should not treat withdrawal as a safe exit strategy once USCIS has raised fraud or willful misrepresentation concerns. Instead, they should carefully evaluate the facts, preserve documentation, and work with counsel to determine the strongest possible response. Submitting a thorough rebuttal is critical because the agency may still make findings that can affect future cases.
Summary
Matter of Texperts is therefore both a warning and a guide. It confirms that USCIS has the authority to make adverse factual findings after withdrawal, but it also reminds the agency that those findings must be legally sound, specific, and supported by the record. For clients, the case underscores the importance of strong internal compliance systems, careful coordination among related entities, and strategic legal responses whenever USCIS raises concerns about fraud or misrepresentation. At ILBSG, we view this decision as a major development in immigration adjudications because it increases the need for proactive compliance, disciplined filing practices, and thoughtful defense strategy at the earliest stage of a case.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing U.S. immigration news. If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, contact us. Working with an experienced attorney ensures you get the right advice based on the most recent laws. In an ever-evolving immigration policy landscape, it’s particularly critical you get the right advice.