Our company is trying to determine the correct Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code for an employee’s H1B petition. Do the employee’s own degree credentials factor into this analysis?
Typically not, as occupational classifications are determined based on the job duties and other details of the position, independent of the particular employee’s credentials. (17.Mar.2026)
Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.
Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
The post Our company is trying to determine the correct Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code for an employee’s H1B petition. Do the employee’s own degree credentials factor into this analysis? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.
AAO Issues Landmark Precedent Decision on Fraud Findings After Petition Withdrawal
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) has issued a significant 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. Although the case arose in the H1B context, the AAO’s legal reasoning is rooted in general USCIS regulatory authority and the broad provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), meaning its implications extend well beyond H1B petitions to immigrant petitions such as the I-140, family-based petitions, adjustment of status applications, and virtually any other benefit request where the USCIS raises a fraud or misrepresentation allegation. The decision makes official what the USCIS has been doing informally for years: issuing findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation even after a petition or application has been withdrawn.
Background: The H1B Lottery and Multiple-Registration FraudThe U.S. Congress caps the number of H1B visas at 65,000 per fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 available for individuals holding U.S. master’s degrees. To administer this limited supply, USCIS requires employers to submit registrations through an annual lottery. An employer may not submit multiple registrations for the same beneficiary in the same lottery cycle and must attest under penalty of perjury that they have not done so. If the USCIS suspects employers of having worked in concert with other employers to file registrations on behalf of the same individual, then the USCIS will find fraud and revoke H1Bs based on this conduct, as explained in the MurthyDotCom InfoArticle Challenging USCIS on H1B Fraud Findings Based on Multiple H1B Registrations (23.May.2024).
What Happened in Matter of TexpertsIn Matter of Texperts, the petitioner, an IT staffing company, filed an H1B petition for a database administrator. After the petition was selected in the lottery, USCIS issued a notice of intent to deny, stating that the petitioner had worked in concert with a related company to submit duplicate lottery registrations for the same beneficiary. Rather than fighting the notice of intent to deny on the merits, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition, which is a tactic that some employers have attempted as a way to cut off the adjudication before a fraud finding could be formally entered. The USCIS acknowledged the withdrawal but still made a formal finding that the petitioner had committed fraud.
The AAO’s Decision: Withdrawals Do Not Erase Fraud FindingsUpon appeal from the petitioner, the AAO held that while USCIS may not adjudicate the merits of a petition after it is withdrawn, it is fully permitted to make findings of fact, including findings of fraud or willful misrepresentation, for the record. However, the AAO also found that the actual fraud finding in this case was deficient and remanded the matter and instructed the USCIS to issue a new, properly reasoned finding.
Because Matter of Texperts is a precedent decision, every USCIS officer reviewing a withdrawn petition going forward is now on notice: a withdrawal does not foreclose a fraud finding, and the agency is authorized to make such findings for the record. This is no longer a matter of informal agency practice, but codified policy.
The Practice History: USCIS has been Doing this for YearsIt is worth noting that this decision makes official something that USCIS has been doing informally for some time. In the context of multiple H1B registration schemes in particular, the agency has issued withdrawal acknowledgment notices containing adverse fraud findings since at least the current wave of multiple-registration enforcement began in earnest following the 2020 and 2021 lottery cycles. Matter of Texperts now provides both the legal foundation for those findings and a procedural roadmap for the analysis that USCIS officers must conduct.
The Consequences of a Fraud or Misrepresentation FindingA finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) renders an individual permanently inadmissible to the United States. This means the foreign national may be barred from obtaining any U.S. visa or adjusting status to lawful permanent residence. The impact is not limited to the current petition, it follows the individual to every future immigration application unless a waiver is granted, as explained in the MurthyDotCom InfoArticle Impact on Visa from Misrepresentation and Fraud (12.Mar.2013). Significantly, the AAO in Matter of Texperts 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.
What this Decision Means for Future Cases: Key Practical TakeawaysThe most important lesson from Matter of Texperts is that a party facing allegations of fraud or misrepresentation cannot avoid an adverse finding simply by withdrawing the petition before the USCIS issues a final decision. Going forward, USCIS officers have explicit precedent authority to issue factual findings alongside any acknowledgment of withdrawal.
At the same time, the fraud standard still must be properly analyzed. Any finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation must be supported by a rational connection between the evidence and the specific legal elements. This gives petitioners and beneficiaries a basis to challenge findings that are inadequately reasoned.
Additionally, submitting a complete rebuttal is essential, and any withdrawal request should be accompanied by a thorough, substantive rebuttal of any fraud or misrepresentation allegations, even if the goal is to withdraw the petition. A well-constructed rebuttal may limit or defeat adverse findings and protect the beneficiary’s long-term immigration interests.
Finally, the AAO highlighted the importance of determining whether the finding falls on the employer or the beneficiary. As the Murthy Law Firm has argued in cases before USCIS, the H1B worker may have had no knowledge of multiple registrations submitted in their name. These are factually distinct situations, and the AAO’s decision underscores that findings of fact must be made with precision and specificity identifying who did what.
ConclusionMatter of Texperts is a watershed moment in immigration enforcement that reaches well beyond the H1B lottery. Given that the decision is now binding on all USCIS adjudicators, its reach could be felt across virtually every immigration benefit category. The Murthy Law Firm will be watching closely to see how USCIS officers outside the H1B unit begin applying this precedent.
In situations like these, always consult a knowledgeable immigration attorney at the earliest stage possible. The Murthy Law Firm has extensive experience handling USCIS fraud findings and misrepresentation cases across many visa categories, and our attorneys are available to consult on these issues and other immigration matters.
Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved.
The post AAO Issues Landmark Precedent Decision on Fraud Findings After Petition Withdrawal appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.
USCIS Hold and Review of Benefit Applications for Nationals of High-Risk Countries
On January 1, 2026, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194, directing all agency personnel to place an adjudicative hold on pending benefit applications filed by or for nationals of countries listed in Presidential Proclamation (PP) 10998, Restricting and Limiting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States. This memorandum significantly expands the scope of prior restrictions and carries immediate consequences for a range of immigration cases.
What the Memorandum RequiresThe memorandum directs USCIS to place a hold on all pending benefit applications for affected individuals, regardless of their date of entry into the United States. The hold allows cases to continue processing, but stops short of a final decision, which means no approvals, denials, or dismissals will be issued until the hold is lifted. USCIS will also conduct a comprehensive re-review of benefit requests that were approved on or after 20.Jan.2021, for nationals of the designated countries. This includes a case-by-case assessment of whether an applicant poses national security or public safety concerns, with particular attention to terrorist watchlist entries, criminal history, and the ability to establish identity through reliable civil documents.
Who is AffectedThe hold applies to any individual who lists a high-risk country identified in PP 10998, as their country of birth or country of citizenship. It also extends to individuals who acquired citizenship through a Citizenship by Investment (CBI) program in a non-restricted country if they are originally from a restricted country, as well as individuals traveling on Palestinian-Authority-issued documents. Notably, family-based immigrant visa applications are no longer automatically exempt and now are subject to the same scrutiny as all other benefit requests.
Presidential Proclamation 10998, signed 16.Dec.2025, builds upon and expands the restrictions originally established by Presidential Proclamation 10949, issued 04.Jun.2025. Together, the two proclamations identify 39 countries whose nationals are subject to entry restrictions and, by extension, the USCIS adjudicative hold. The countries subject to a full suspension of entry for both immigrants and nonimmigrants are Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as individuals traveling on documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority.
The countries subject to a partial suspension, which restricts immigrant visas and nonimmigrant B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas, are Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Turkmenistan also is partially restricted, with a suspension limited to immigrant visa issuance. Because the USCIS adjudicative hold applies to nationals from all designated countries regardless of whether they fall under a full or partial ban, applicants from any of these 39 countries, as well as Palestinian Authority document holders, should be prepared for processing delays and heightened scrutiny of their pending or recently approved benefit requests.
Limited ExceptionsCertain filings are exempt from the hold. These include Form I-90 applications to replace a Permanent Resident Card, Form N-565 replacement citizenship document applications, certain employment authorization applications required by court order or requested by law enforcement, and benefit requests filed by athletes participating in events such as the World Cup or Olympics. Requests also may be exempt on a case-by-case basis where an individual’s entry would serve a United States national interest.
ConclusionThis memorandum represents a substantial expansion of USCIS adjudicative holds and may result in significant processing delays for affected applicants. Individuals from the designated countries who have pending, or recently approved benefit requests should be aware that their cases may be subject to additional review, interview, or re-interview. We strongly encourage anyone impacted by this policy to consult with an immigration attorney to understand how these changes may affect their case and to explore all available legal options. For questions or assistance, please contact the Murthy Law Firm.
Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
The post USCIS Hold and Review of Benefit Applications for Nationals of High-Risk Countries appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.
Do I need to offer my H1B employees the same employee benefits as other workers?
Yes. H1B employees must be offered the same benefits as similarly employed workers. Employers cannot treat employees differently simply because they hold H1B status. (10.Mar.2026)
Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.
Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
The post Do I need to offer my H1B employees the same employee benefits as other workers? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.
I have a pending I-485 application and recently changed employers. Do I need to file for AC21 job portability immediately?
Individuals with a pending I-485 must remain eligible for adjustment of status while the application is pending. If the individual no longer has a job offer from the employer that initially sponsored the green card case, it is important to request AC21 job portability as soon as possible to confirm that a qualifying job offer continues to support the pending I-485. (10.Mar.2026)
Sheela Murthy and other senior attorneys provide guidance that clarifies the law. For information on our FREE online services, click here. Access more FAQs here.
Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
The post I have a pending I-485 application and recently changed employers. Do I need to file for AC21 job portability immediately? appeared first on Murthy Law Firm | U.S Immigration Law.
