dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-Q-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT.19,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a road construction entrepreneur, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )( 1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition tor Alien 
Worker, concluding that while the Petitioner had met at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the record did not show a level of expertise indicating that he was 
among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. During the 
adjudication of the Petitioner's appeal, we received information that compromised the credibility of 
his claims. Accordingly, in July 2017, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) the appeal. In 
response, we received a letter from counsel dated August 28, 2017, withdrawing the Petitioner's 
appeal. Although the Petitioner has withdrawn his appeal, we will enter an administrative finding of 
a willful misrepresentation of material facts. 
I. LAW 
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, 
.
Matter of Q-Q-
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
1 
II. DEROGATORY INFORMATION 
The record contains 
derogatory information related to the evidence supporting the petition. On July 
24, 2017, 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)(ii) permits a petitioner to submit 
evidence of his "membership in associations in the field ... which require outstanding achievements 
of their members." The Petitioner provided documentation of his membership in the 
Committee of Experts. His supporting evidence included an 
October 2007 appointment certificate; a July 2015 recommendation letter allegedly signed by 
Director of and a July 2014 letter of certification also allegedly signed by 
The investigating officer contacted and sent him the aforementioned documents for 
review. responded that the signatures on the two letters were not his own and that he had 
not issued those letters. The record, therefore, contains two falsified letters from 
As further evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner submitted 
documentation of his membership in the 
His documents included a July 2014 "letter of 
certification" and a July 2015 "confirmation of membership" letter, both allegedly signed by 
deputy chairman of the Term of Council of The investigator contacted 
and sent him the aforementioned documents for review. response indicated that 
the signatures on the two letters were not his own, and that he had not signed any documents or 
issued any recommendation letter in the Petitioner's behalf. Accordingly, the record includes two 
falsified letters from 
In addition, the Petitioner offered a February 2012 ' 
issued by' 
and an October 2013 
1 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 intemational acclaim and 
demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. 
USC!S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (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. 20 13); Rijal v. USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 20 II). 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). 
2 
-------•---------------------------
.
Matter of Q-Q-
The investigating officer contacted at (listed on the association's 
website: www. and sent the and the for 
verification. responded that the Petitioner did not become a member until 2013 and that he 
had not fulfilled his duty as a member and paid its membership fee since 2015. As the Petitioner 
was not a member of in 2012, the February 2012' he submitted is a 
falsification. 
The regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) permits a petitioner to offer evidence of his 
"participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others.'' The Petitioner 
provided appointment certificates from the indicating that he was a 
member of the judging panel for the "' 
2011) and a member of the ' 
2005). In addition, he offered two appointment letters issued by 
in November 2015 listing his duties as a judge and an evaluator. The investigator 
contacted the section chief of the of the 
and sent him the aforementioned documents for 
verification. His response letter indicated that the 
that his agency had issued those documents. Accordingly, the 
the Petitioner offered are falsifications. 
records did not show 
documents 
As further evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner provided a 
November 2003 appointment certificate and a July 2015 certification letter from the Editorial 
Committee of indicating that he was appointed 
as a "contributing editor." The investigating officer contacted the Editorial Committee of 
using the telephone number listed on the certification letter and sent the aforementioned documents 
for verification. The Editorial Committee responded that the appointment certificate and 
certification letter the Petitioner submitted were not issued by their organization. In addition, the 
response indicated that the letterhead and the stamp used in the documents were inconsistent. The 
actual stamp of the Editorial Committee should contain a registration code and the English name of 
the journal. Furthermore, the Chinese name of the journal is actually 
and not The record indicates, therefore, 
that the appointment certificate and certification letter are falsifications. 
As evidence of a leading role for his company under 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and a high salary 
under 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Petitioner submitted an August 2014 "Expert Opinion Letter" 
allegedly from Professor and Dean of 
The investigator contacted and sent him the aforementioned letter for 
verification. In response, stated that the signature on the letter was not his own and that he 
did not write a letter in the Petitioner's behalf. He also indicated that the stamp of the 
was a forgery. In addition, provided a 
formal statement with his signature and the genuine stamp of the 
Accordingly, the record contains a falsified letter from 
3 
Matter of Q-Q-
In accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), we afforded the Petitioner 33 days to 
rebut the aforementioned derogatory information. In response, he requests that his appeal be 
withdrawn rather than contesting our findings. Our NOID advised the Petitioner that the withdrawal 
ofhis appeal would not prevent a finding of willful material misrepresentation. 
III. MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS 
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. !d. As the Petitioner did not ofier a 
rebuttal overcoming the above derogatory information, we will enter a finding of a material 
misrepresentation of 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. U.S., 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 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, 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 a<;cidentally, 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 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 ofNg, 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 
of M-, 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 
memberships, participation as a judge of others' work, leading role, and salary. A misrepresentation 
4 
Matter of Q-Q-
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. INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 
WL 1185150 (April 30, 1991 ). Here, the Petitioner falsified letters and other documents offered in 
support of his petition. 
Second, the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentations. The Petitioner signed the Form I -140, 
certifying under penalty of perjury that his petition and the evidence submitted with it 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). More specifically, the signature portion of Form I-140, at part 8, requires the 
petitioner to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of 
the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and 
correct." On the basis of t~is 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. 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 misrepresentations regarding his memberships, judging, leading 
role, and salary relate to the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); and therefore, are 
material to his eligibility. 
Accordingly, by tiling 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. Furthermore, 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 
surrounding the prior application or petition shall otherwise be material to the new application or 
petition." 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner withdrew his appeal, we find that he made a willful misrepresentation of 
material facts. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed based on its withdrawal by the Petitioner. 
Cite as Matter of Q-Q-, ID# 410030 (AAO Sept. 19, 20 17) 
5