No. Answer the applicable history questions accurately and provide the relevant records requested. A different preference does not erase an existing filing or decision.
Keep the actual case history consistent
Identify what remains pending and what, if anything, has been formally changed or withdrawn. Do not describe a private choice as an official case action or assume the new process automatically closes the earlier one. Write the case history as a plain chronology and keep it current: what was filed, with which authority, on what date, under what number, and its present status.
Attach the receipt or acknowledgement for each entry. Answering a history question accurately is straightforward when that chronology exists and difficult when it has to be reconstructed from memory under time pressure. Hypothetical example: a drug safety narrative writer who filed an EB-5 petition two years ago and has heard nothing since assumes it lapsed; nothing lapses because an applicant stopped thinking about it, and the actual status has to be established rather than presumed.
Where a prior filing is to be withdrawn, ask counsel what the correct mechanism is and keep the confirmation, since a withdrawal that was never made is worse than one never intended. Record who holds each receipt and acknowledgement, because a chronology whose paper nobody can produce is only a recollection. Where a representative acted on an earlier filing, ask them directly for the file's current status rather than inferring it, and note the date of their answer.