The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) has issued a precedent decision, Matter of Texperts, Inc., 29 I&N Dec. 491 (AAO 2026), that will have lasting consequences for employers and foreign nationals facing fraud or misrepresentation allegations across a wide range of immigration benefit requests. The decision was issued on March 6, 2026, and incorporated into agency policy on March 9, 2026. In effect, petitioners and applicants can no longer avoid fraud or willful misrepresentation findings by withdrawing an immigration benefit request.
What changed
In the underlying case, a U.S. staffing company (Texperts, Inc.) filed an H-1B petition after lottery selection. During review, USCIS identified indicators suggesting the beneficiary may have been subject to multiple coordinate registrations—a practice that can improperly increase selection odds and constitute fraud or misrepresentation. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny, and the petitioner withdrew the petition before a final decision.
USCIS acknowledged the withdrawal but simultaneously issued a decision making a formal fraud finding based on the record, with potential implications for the beneficiary’s future immigration filings and criminal liability. The petitioner appealed, arguing USCIS lacked authority to issue the finding after withdrawal. The AAO disagreed and preserved USCIS’s authority to document adverse findings even when a petition is no longer pending.
The AAO held that while a visa petition may not be denied on the merits following a withdrawal, an officer is permitted to make findings of fact relevant to future benefit requests, including findings regarding fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact. However, the AAO also found that the actual fraud finding in this case was deficient and remanded the matter, instructing USCIS to issue a new, properly reasoned finding.
USCIS advised immigration officers to use the terms “fraud” and “willful misrepresentation” in their adjudications with specificity, instructing officers to “clearly and precisely state whether an action involved fraud or willful misrepresentation”. 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 it matters
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.
A finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact renders an individual permanently inadmissible to the United States, meaning the foreign national may be barred from obtaining any U.S. visa or adjusting status to lawful permanent residence. The AAO confirmed that a finding of willful misrepresentation of material fact is sufficient to trigger these consequences, which has a lower bar than a full fraud finding.
This decision 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.
For practitioners, every USCIS officer reviewing a withdrawn petition going forward is now on notice: a withdrawal does not foreclose a fraud finding, and this is no longer a matter of informal agency practice, but codified policy.
Way forward
-
Do not rely on withdrawal as a litigation shield. If USCIS has issued or signaled a fraud concern in an RFE or Notice of Intent to Deny, withdrawing the petition does not eliminate exposure to adverse factual findings that will follow your client into future cases.
-
Challenge the legal sufficiency of any fraud or willful misrepresentation finding. The AAO emphasized that USCIS must clearly articulate the legal elements and cite record evidence supporting a fraud or misrepresentation finding. Deficient findings may be remanded on appeal.
-
Distinguish fraud from willful misrepresentation. If your client disputes allegations, help USCIS officers understand that the facts may support willful misrepresentation of a material fact (the lower standard) rather than fraud (which requires intent to deceive and reliance). This affects both the sufficiency of the finding and future waiver opportunities.
-
Counsel H-1B employers on registration discipline. Employers should audit their registration practices to ensure each H-1B registration reflects a legitimate job opportunity submitted independently, without coordination with other entities to increase selection odds.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The policies and procedures described are subject to change without notice. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on any interpretation of USCIS policy or AAO precedent. Verify all guidance against the primary source documents linked above.