dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting And Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-R-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 10, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an actor and model, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria but that he did not 
establish eligibility in the final merits analysis. In addition, the Director determined the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner intended to work in his area of expertise upon entering the 
United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, and maintains that he intends to work as an 
actor and model in the United States and that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Subsequently, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) in which we raised concerns about 
discrepancies found during an overseas investigation regarding the Petitioner's supporting 
documentation. The Petitioner responded with a statement and an additional photograph. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal and enter an administrative finding of a willful 
misrepresentation of material facts. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
Matter of P-R-S-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner's evidence indicated that he launched his modeling and acting career after he was first 
runner-u in the beaut 2004), and the winner of the I I 
.__ _________ ---r---.------,----.------' 2004). 1 Subsequently, he has worked as 
an actor in the Indian movies 
India for several fashion brands. 
(2007) and~-----"2009), and as a model in advertising campaigns in 
The Director determined that the evidence submitted did not establish that the Petitioner has received 
a major, internationally recognized award. The Director held that the Petitioner met the criteria for 
lesser prizes, published material, and judging, at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),(iii), and (iv), respectively, 
1 As discussed more fully below. there is a discrepancy regarding the actual name of the 2004 .._ _____ ___. 
competition that calls into question the authenticity of the award. 
2 
Matter of P-R-S-
but that he had not met the criteria for leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 2 
Ultimately, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established eligibility in the final merits 
analysis. 
A. Derogatory Information 
The record contains derogatory information related to the evidence supporting the pet1t10n, 
specifically, regarding an award, an article, and several reference letters. In May 2019, we issued a 
NOID advising the Petitioner that information obtained during an overseas investigation by U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) raised serious credibility questions regarding his 
evidence of eligibility. We set forth the information detailed below and provided the Petitioner an 
opportunity to respond. 
Specifically, the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) permits the petitioner to submit evidence 
that he has received a major, internationally recognized award. The Petitioner provided documentation 
indicating that in 2004 in I I Ecuador, he received an award from [ I 
including articles mentioning his receipt of the award published mostly in Indian sources. However, 
there was inconsistency regarding the actual name of the competition that called into question the 
authenticity of the award. Specifically, a photo of the trophy shows it is for I I 
while an award certificate indicates it was fo~ I The record did not contain 
any information about the awarding organization. During the adjudication of the appeal, we forwarded 
the documentation overseas to confirm the Petitioner's award was genuine. The overseas investigation 
was unable to confirm whether the award was genuine. Specifically, a USCIS investigating officer 
was able to locate press articles dated 2007 and 2008 about an event titled I I 
I I" but was unable to locate any information relating to the Petitioner's receipt of the titleD 
I ~n 2004. 
Accordingly, we notified the Petitioner of the derogatory information in our NOID. In response, the 
Petitioner argues that the inability of the overseas investigation to confirm whether the award was 
genuine is "not surprising" given "that this event occurred 15 years ago." He claims that the 
inconsistencies in the record are "slight" and states that the articles submitted about the award are 
sufficient evidence of his receipt of it. He submits an additional photograph of himself wearing a sash 
bearing the legend I 12004." The Petitioner also provides a statement that he 
participated in the relevant competition and received the award. He farther asserts that he has 
"requested ~------~· . . who participated in the same contest as me to write a letter 
confirming my victory," and his brief indicates her letter is enclosed. The Petitioner's response, 
however, does not contain a letter froml I We do not find the Petitioner's arguments to be 
credible or sufficient to overcome the negative findings with regard to the trophy and award certificate. 
The Petitioner has not provided documentation from the awarding organization or other independent 
and objective evidence to explain the discrepancies pertaining to the award and to confirm that the 
award is genuine. 
2 The Petitioner initially stated that he satisfied the high salary criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On appeal, he no 
longer asserts that claim, so we will not consider it. 
3 
Matter of P-R-S-
As an alternative to demonstrating that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 e.F.R. 204.5 h 3 i - x . The Petitioner 
submitted an article titled .__ _____________________ _. purportedly 
published in the U.K. newspaper The Sun, with information about the publication that is consistent 
with major media. 3 The article, which includes three photographs of the Petitioner, is about him and 
relates to his work in modeling. Accordingly, this article is material to the published materials criterion 
at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Petitioner provided an additional copy of this article from an 
unknown source. The article from The Sun contains apparent alterations when compared to the other 
article, that now indicate its source and date, a different author, and other inconsistencies calling into 
question its authenticity. In our NOID, we noted that the investigating officer was unable to confirm 
the veracity of the article from The Sun. In response, the Petitioner's statement claims that he "was 
engaged with a PR firm in India" and that he "was told that this was a reproduction of an article in Sri 
Lanka that was passed on by the interviewer who had that article printed in the UK online publication." 
He asserts that he was "not aware of the authenticity of this article as this was filed in my PR booklet." 
We do not find the Petitioner's arguments to be credible or sufficient to overcome the negative findings 
with regard to the article published in The Sun, and to confirm that the article was genuine. 
The Petitioner further provided letters that appear to bear the signatures ofl I the director 
of I I a film producer, that are material to the lead or critical 
role criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5 h 3 viii . The three letters froml I attest to the Petitioner's 
critical role as a model with The two letters froml I indicate that the 
Petitioner performed in a critical role fo .__ ______ __.as a lead actor in the filmD for which 
Owas the production company. 
The recent overseas investigation, however, found derogatory information that casts doubt on the 
veracity of the above letters. Specifically, a users investirting officer showed I I the letter 
dated July 1 7, 2018, on the letterhead of I which appears to have been written and 
signed by him. I lstated that he never wrote a reference letter for the Petitioner, he did not 
write the letter dated July 17, 2018, the signature on that document is not his, the date is written in the 
American format (mm/dd/yyyy) which he never uses, and, therefore, the "document is a counterfeit." 
Accordingly, the record contains three falsified letters from I I including the letter dated 
July 17, 2018. 
In addition, the investigating officer showed! lthe letter dated June 24, 2018, on the 
letterhead o~ l purportedly authored and signed by him. I I denied that he wrote 
~ed the letter. More particularly, he stated that he never used a company by the name ofc=J 
l__J' the signature on the letter was not his, he has "never issued any letter addressed to users for 
[the Petitioner] for immigration benefits on June 24, 2018," and, therefore, the letter "is totally 
counterfeited and fabricated." Therefore, I O I has confirmed that the record contains a 
falsified letter from him dated June 24, 2018.4 
3 We note that other articles submitted do not contain information identifying their source, date or author. 
4 Although the investigating officer did not ask I I about the authenticity of the other letter in the record, 
allegedly written and signed by him in 2015, the falsified 2018 letter seriously compromises the authenticity of the 
4 
Matter of P-R-S-
We notified the Petitioner of the above-referenced derogatory information in our NOID. In response, 
the Petitioner's statement claims that he hired an individual in India, I I "to obtain the 
reference letters," more specifically "to go collect the draft from [the Petitioner's] sister's place in 
I I take the print out and go to individuals for signing purposes." The Petitioner indicates that 
he "did not think to authenticate their signatures" once he "received the signed letter froml I 
because "[t]hey were expecting my drafts, as per my conversations with them." The Petitioner 
indicates that he has tried unsuccessfully to contact! l"multiple times to get clarity on the issue 
highlighted [in the NOID]." The Petitioner acknowledges that "the AAO has presented evidence in 
support of the fact that the signatures on the letters themselves were false." The Petitioner argues, 
however, that "no evidence has been submitted which demonstrates that [the Petitioner's] 
representations were 'willful.'" 
The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. For the reasons discussed above, the 
Petitioner has not sufficiently resolved the discrepancies in the record set forth in our NOID that call 
into question the Petitioner's eligibility, and the appeal will be dismissed on that basis. 
B. Material Misrepresentations 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. In addition, we find that he has misrepresented material facts. 
In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an 
individual or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. US., 345 
F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and 
the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to 
rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts stated in the 
petition are not true. See Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In this case, the discrepancies and errors lead us to 
conclude that the above-referenced evidence of the Petitioner's achievements, which is material to his 
eligibility as an individual of "extraordinary ability," is neither true nor credible. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that 
the individual willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. See Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N 
Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished 
from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of 
Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 
1979). To be considered material, the misrepresentation must be one which "tends to shut off a line 
remaining documentation submitted in support of the petition, as well as the Petitioner's credibility. See Matter of Ho, 19 
l&N Dec. at 591. 
5 
Matter of P-R-S-
of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper 
determination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536,537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition 
proceedings, he or she must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation 
to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the misrepresentation was willfully 
made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter ofM-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); 
Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
First, the Petitioner misrepresented his accomplishments and achievements, including his having 
received a major, internationally recognized award, press coverage in The Sun, and critical roles with 
organizations. A misrepresentation can be made to a government official in an oral interview, on the 
face of a written application or petition, or by submitting evidence containing false information. See 
INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 (April 30, 1991). Here, the Petitioner provided altered, 
forged, or fraudulent documentation and made untrue claims about himself: constituting false 
representations to a government official. 
Second, the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentations. The Petitioner signed Form 1-140, 
certifying under penalty of perjury that the petition and the submitted evidence are all true and 
correct. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). On the 
basis of this affirmation, made under penalty of perjury, it must be concluded that the Petitioner 
willfully and knowingly made the misrepresentations. 
Third, the evidence is material to the Petitioner's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. Kungys v. US., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a misrepresented 
fact is material if the misrepresentation cut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the eligibility 
criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa petition. See Ng, 17 I&N 
Dec. at 537. Here, the above-referenced misrepresentations regarding his award, press coverage, and 
critical roles relate to eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Accordingly, by filing the instant petition, making false representations, and submitting fabricated 
documentation, the Petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through a willful 
misrepresentation of material facts. This finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be 
considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. See section 212( a)( 6)( C) of the 
Act. 
C. Additional Eligibility Issues 
We will briefly address the Petitioner's argument, made on appeal, that even ifhe has not shown that 
he received a major, internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he still meets at 
least three criteria and has shown eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We conclude 
that the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence that he meets at least three of the ten 
criteria. 
6 
Matter of P-R-S-
We find that the record reflects that he only meets two criteria, lesser awards and judging, thus 
complying with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iv . The Petitioner demonstrated that he received a 
lesser national award as the first runner-up in th competition (2004). He submitted 
evidence indicating that he was the first runner-up in the 2004 .__ _____ __.beauty pageant in 
I I including a photo of the trophy he received, and an award certificate from the sponsoring 
organization. In addition, the Petitioner provided a 2015 letter froml I the national 
director of the 2004 .__ _____ __. competition, who states that the pageant conducted rigorous 
regional competitions to determine the 30 individuals chosen to compete in the pageant. 5 I I 
letter, together with the other media coverage in the record, shows that this award represents a lesser 
nationally recognized award for excellence in the field of modeling. The Petitioner also submitted 
evidence that he participated as a judge at ~-=======;~(2008), a national beauy pageant that 
annually selects representatives to compete in I I and I (2016), 6 thus 
complying with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner further claims to meet the criterion for published material about him under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) based on the remaining articles in the record. However, as noted previously, those 
articles do not contain information identifying their source, date or author, and the Petitioner did not 
show that they were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either 
a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability, and he has made a willful misrepresentation of material facts. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-R-S-, ID# 2012050 (AAO Sept. 10, 2019) 
5 Althoughl I letter does not detail his involvement with thd !contest, the Petitioner's award 
ce1tificate indicates he was the national director of the 2004 contest. 
6 This event is also referred to in the record as the .__ ______ __.competition. 
7