dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7880530 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 20, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes 
visas available to foreign nationals 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 concluded that the Petitioner had neither demonstrated his receipt of a major 
internationally recognized award nor met three of the ten evidentiary criteria, as required. The 
Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider the Director's decision. 
Both motions were subsequently dismissed. The Petitioner then appealed the Director's dismissal of 
these motions to us. During the adjudication of the Petitioner's appeal, we received information that 
compromised the credibility of his claims. Accordingly , on March 23, 2021, we issued a notice of 
intent to dismiss (NOID) the appeal. In response, we received a letter from counsel dated March 30, 
2021, requesting that the Petitioner's appeal be withdrawn. The Petitioner's request to withdraw the 
appeal is granted; however, notwithstanding the withdrawal of this appeal, we will enter a separate 
finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the Petitioner. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate international 
recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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). 
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). 
II. REQUESTFOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL 
As noted above, we issued a NOID, notifying the Petitioner of adverse findings outside the record of 
proceeding. The Petitioner subsequently asked to withdraw the appeal. He did not acknowledge, 
discuss, or dispute the adverse findings in his withdrawal request. 
A withdrawal may not be retracted and may not be refused. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(6); Matter of Cintron, 
16 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1976). Accordingly, the Petitioner's request will be granted and the appeal will 
be dismissed based on that withdrawal. 
III. MATERIAL MISRESPRESENTA TION 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented information about 
his membership in the China Beverage Industry Association (CBIA), which was material to the 
adjudication of the petition. 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner claimed to be an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of business as a wine expert. 
In relevant part, the Petitioner asserted his eligibility for the classification sought based upon the regulatoiy 
criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), which permits a petitioner to submit evidence of his "membership in 
associations in the field ... which require outstanding achievements of their members." The Petitioner claimed 
that he satisfied this criterion through membership in multiple organizations, one of which was the China 
Beverage Industry Association (CBIA). 1 To demonstrate this, he submitted a Chinese language certificate 
1 The Petitioner also claimed eligibility through his memberships in the China National Food Industry Association , China 
2 
allegedly from CBIA and accompanying English language translation of that certificate identifying him as 
"Senior Member." The Petitioner also provided Chinese language screenshots from the website 
www.chinabeverage.org and English language translations of these documents titled "Introduction of [CBIA]," 
"Articles of [CBIA]," and "Oraauizational Structure of [CBIA]," and screenshots from www.famous-
entrepreneurs.com abou~ [ and from www.bloomberg.com abou~ I 
However, as we advised the Petitioner in our NOID, an overseas investigation by USCIS revealed 
derogatory information relating to the certificate and translations of the CBIA articles to establish his 
membership. As part of this investigation, a USCIS officer contacted the CBIA's Director of 
Membership to verify the authenticity of the membership certificate provided with the instant petition. 
The Director of Membership stated that members of CBIA are names of businesses, and that to her 
knowledge, there has never been a "Senior Member" membership category. The investigating officer 
then provided the Director of Membership a copy of the membership certificate in the record. Upon 
review of this certificate, the Director of Membership reiterated that she is unaware of CBIA issuing 
certificates in the category of "Senior Member." She further advised that alll I ~ertificates are 
issued with CBIA 's official seal and that this ce1tificate does not contain said seal. 
The investigating officer also reviewed the CBIA website screenshots and translations provided by the 
Petitioner and dete1mined that the translation for "A1ticle 12. Senior Membership C1iteria" does not 
accurately reflect what the website says. The investigating officer advised that, upon careful review of 
the website pages provided, there are no other sections entitled "Senior Membership Criteria" nor do any 
other sections refer to a "Senior Member." The officer stated that Article 7 of the provided webpage 
printout indicates that there are only two types of memberships: "Ordinary Member" and "Associate 
Member," and that it appears this section was omitted from the accompanying translation. 
In our NOID, we further noted that the Petitioner provided this evidence with a previous petition 
I I to establish his membership in CBIA. 2 Accordingly we notified the Petitioner 
that it appeared he had repeatedly submitted fraudulent documents and incomplete translations to 
establish eligibility for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. 
Our NOID gave the Petitioner an oppmtunity to respond to the adverse information, as required by 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(i). We also advised the Petitioner that the withdrawal of his appeal would not 
prevent a finding of willful material misrepresentation. The Petitioner responded to our NOID with a 
request to withdraw the appeal but did not address the above-described adverse findings in any way. 
B. Analysis 
The facts and evidence presented in the instant matter wan-ant a finding of willful misrepresentation 
of a material fact against the Petitioner. 
National Association for Liquor Spirits Circulation, the China General Chamber of Commerce, the China Green Ribbon 
Care Association, and thl I Wine & Spirits Association. 
2 The record reflects that this petition was initially approved by the Director, but then revoked as it was approved in error 
and the Petitioner had not established eligibility for the benefit sought. In addition to revoking the approval of the petition, 
the Director entered a finding of willful misrepresentation. In a subsequently filed appealofthatdecision, we upheld the 
Director's decision and the willful misrepresentation finding. 
3 
A misrepresentation is an asse1iion or manifestation that is not in accord with the true facts. As 
outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, 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 ofTijam, 22 
I&N Dec. 408,425 (BIA 1998); Matter ofHea(v 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 of inquiry 
which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which might well have resulted m a proper 
dete1mination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
USCIS will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. 
In general, a few e1rnrs or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of a foreign 
national or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enters. Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 
694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the 
petitioner does not resolve those e1rnrs and discrepancies given the opportunity to rebut or explain, 
then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the claims stated in the petition are not true. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
In this case, the discrepancies in the documents relating to the petition constitute substantial and 
probative evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) permits a petitioner to submit evidence 
of his "membership in associations in the field ... which require outstanding achievements of their 
members." The Petitioner submitted a ce1iificate for CBIA identifying him as a member; however, an 
overseas investigation determined that this organization does not admit individuals as members. This 
investigation also revealed that official CBIA membership certificates include the association's 
official seal, and that the submitted ce1iificate lacked this seal. Moreover, the investigating officer 
determined that the translations of the CBIA articles of membership submitted by the Petitioner were 
altered. In this case, these discrepancies and errors lead us to conclude that the evidence of the 
Petitioner's membership in CBIA, which is material to his eligibility as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability," is neither true nor credible. 
When given an oppmiunity to rebut these findings, the Petitioner offered no rebuttal or explanation 
for the inconsistencies. Instead, he withdrew the appeal. If the Petitioner had not withdrawn the 
appeal, we would have dismissed the appeal based, in part, on these misrepresentations. See Cintron, 
16 I&N Dec. at 9; see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
Beyond the adjudication of the visa petition, a misrepresentation may lead USCIS to enter a finding 
that an individual foreign national sought to procure a visa or other documentation by willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. This finding of fact may lead USCIS to determine, in a future 
proceeding, that the foreign national is inadmissible to the United States based on the past 
misrepresentation. 
4 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C), provides: 
Misrepresentation - (i) In general - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully 
misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure ( or has sought to procure or has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other 
benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
To find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition proceedings, an immigration officer 
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 of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of L-L-, 
9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Ka; Hing Hu;, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
First, with the instant petition, and with a prior petition, the Petitioner submitted documents and altered 
translations intended to establish his membership in CBIA and therefore his eligibility for the 
regulatmy criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner's submission of these falsified 
documents in support of his immigrant visa petition constitutes a false representation to a government 
official. 
Second, the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. The Petitioner signed the Fmm I-140, 
certifying under penalty of perjury that his petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and 
conect. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(2). More specifically, the signature portion of Form I-140, at part 8, required the Petitioner 
to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 
States of Ame1ica, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and con-ect." On 
the basis of this affirmation, made under penalty of perjury, we conclude 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. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a misrepresented 
fact is mate1ial if the misrepresentation cut off a line of inquity 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 misrepresentations regarding his memberships relate to the regulatory criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, they are mate1ial to his eligibility. 
Accordingly, by filing the instant petition, making false representations, and submitting altered 
translations, 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. Furthe1more, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15) provides: "Withdrawal or denial due to 
abandonment shall not itself affect the new proceeding; but the facts and circumstances sunounding 
the prior application or petition shall otherwise be material to the new application or petition." 
5 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner withdrew his appeal, we find that he made a willful misrepresentation of 
mate1ial facts. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed based on its withdrawal by the Petitioner. 
6