New landmark decision says withdrawn H-1B petitions could still trigger fraud investigation

If two companies file H-1B petitions for the same person, not by mistake, but to play the lottery, it is considered fraud. USCIS would not have pursued the matter if the applicant had withdrawn the petition at a critical time, but now USCIS’ Office of Administrative Appeals has issued a landmark decision saying that withdrawing the petition does not shield the applicant from a fraud investigation.The decision sets a precedent, meaning it will be effective for all future cases. Experts say that while the decision was made in response to H-1B cases, it will now apply to all immigration applications. If USCIS officers discover that an application has been withdrawn, they can investigate and find out whether the application was intended to be fraudulent.

H-1B Lottery and Multiple Registration

It is a common fraud to register the same person multiple times to increase the chance of winning the lottery. In the particular case in which the new decision came about, IT staffing firm Matter of Texperts filed an H1B petition for a database administrator. After the application was selected in the lottery, USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny, stating that the applicant worked with a related company to submit duplicate lottery registrations for the same beneficiary.Matter of Texperts withdrew the petition, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said the company committed fraud. The petitioner appealed against the Immigration Board. The Office of Administrative Appeals said USCIS has the authority to investigate alleged fraud. “Because the Texperts issue is a precedent decision, every USCIS official reviewing a withdrawal application will now be notified that withdrawal does not preclude the findings of a fraud investigation and that the agency has the authority to document such findings. This is no longer a matter of informal institutional practice but of written policy. ” Murthy Law Firm explained the new decision.

What does the new decision mean for future cases?