dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 8, 2024 In Re: 30590679 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a financial and investment analyst, seeks classification under the employment-based, 
first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U .S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A) . This 
category makes immigrant visas available to noncitizens who demonstrate "sustained national or 
international acclaim" and submit "extensive documentation" of their achievements' recognition in 
their fields . Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met one initial evidentiary criteria - two less than required to obtain a final merits 
determination. The Director also found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her intent to continue 
working in her field in the United States and willfully submitted false English translations of evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner denies that she intended to submit altered translations and asks us to review 
the Director's decisions regarding evidentiary criteria. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the record supports the Director's misrepresentation finding. By not raising 
one issue and not specifying errors in others, the Petitioner effectively waived challenge to the findings 
regarding her intent to work in the United States and her claims of meeting additional evidentiary 
criteria. We will therefore also dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• They have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• They seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Their work would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b )( 1)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise commensurate with "one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Evidence 
of extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary standards. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 
If a petitioner meets either of the evidentiary requirements above, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) must make a final merits determination as to whether the record, as a whole, 
establishes their sustained national or international acclaim and recognized achievements placing them 
among the small percentage at their field's very top. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 
(9th Cir. 2010) (requiring a two-part analysis of extraordinary ability). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Petitioner 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Chinese native and citizen, earned a bachelor's degree in 
management in China and a master's degree in financial investment in Australia. After returning to 
China, she gained more than eight years of experience as a financial analyst and investment director. 
The Petitioner claims that, in Asia, she is "widely recognized" as a "leading expert" in financial 
analysis. She states that she has made "significant contributions" to the research and development of 
financial services and has "noteworthy achievements" integrating international financial exchanges. 
The record does not establish - nor does the Petitioner claim - her receipt of a major, international 
award. She must therefore meet at least three of the ten lesser evidentiary criteria. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner demonstrated her 
authorship of scholarly articles in her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Thus, to obtain a final merits determination, the Petitioner must both demonstrate her intent to continue 
work in her field in the United States under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and satisfy at least two 
other evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). We first address the statutory requirement. 
B. Intent to Continue Working in the Field in the United States. 
To qualify for the requested immigrant visa category, a noncitizen must "seek[] to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
By regulation: 
the petition must be accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to 
the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
1 If the standards do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation, the noncitizen may submit comparable evidence to 
establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as 
contracts, or a statement from the [petitioner] detailing plans on how [they] intend[] to 
continue [their] work in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
The Petitioner stated that, in the United States, she would continue working in the financial analysis 
field. In response to the Director's notice of intent to deny (NOID) the petition, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from a company offering her a U.S. job. The Director, however, questioned the 
letter's credibility and found no evidence of the Petitioner's acceptance of the purported offer. 
Because the Petitioner does not challenge this denial ground on appeal, we deem the issue to be 
"waived" and decline to review the Director's finding regarding her intent to work in the United States. 
See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (declining to address an argument not 
advanced on appeal); see also Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter 
ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)) (same). Based on the unchallenged denial ground 
regarding the Petitioner's intent to work in her field in the United States, we will affirm the petition's 
denial. 
C. Misrepresentation 
Noncitizens who fraudulently or willfully misrepresent material facts in benefit requests cannot gain 
admission to the United States. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).2 
Misrepresentations are willful if they are "deliberately made with knowledge of their falsity." Matter 
ofMensah, 28 I&N Dec. 288, 293-94 (BIA 2021) ( citations omitted). A misrepresentation is material 
when it has a "natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the 
decision-making body to which it was addressed." Id. ( citing Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 
771 (1988). Because of the potential, severe consequences to noncitizens, we must "closely 
scrutinize" findings of fraud or material misrepresentation. Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794, 797 
(BIA 1994). 
The Director found that the Petitioner's evidence of her purported participation as a judge of others' 
work in the field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) contained "willfully altered" documents. The 
Petitioner submitted evidence that she judged two financial competitions. She provided printouts 
about the contests and letters inviting her to serve as a judge at the competitions and thanking her for 
her service. With a prior extraordinary ability petition, however, the Petitioner submitted these same 
original documents. The documents' initial English translations indicated that she judged the work of 
undergraduate, university students. The Director found that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
2 Our determination regarding the misrepresentation determination against the Petitioner is a "finding of fact," not an 
admissibility determination. These proceedings are not the appropriate forum for dete1mining a noncitizen's 
admissibility. Matter ofChristo 's, 26 T&N Dec. at 540-41 (citing Matter of0-, 8 T&N Dec. 295, 296-97 (BIA 1959)). But 
USCTS decisions should include specific findings and conclusions on material issues of law or fact arising in a case, 
including findings of fraud or material misrepresentation. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)(l )(i); see also 5 U.S.C. § 557(c). After 
we enter a finding of fact here, USCIS or another agency may determine the Beneficiary's admissibility in separate 
proceedings. 
3 
requires proof ofjudging professionals, not students. In the current petition proceedings, the Director 
found that the English translations of the same documents "were altered to remove any mention of 
'students,' 'teachers,' 'college students,' and 'universities."' Because both the prior and current 
translations share the same translator, the Director reasoned that the discrepancies did not result from 
a different translator's interpretation of the documents. Thus, the Director found that the Petitioner 
altered the documents' translations in this and another prior petition to remove indications that she had 
judged the work of students, rather than professionals. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not deny the alterations to the translations. Rather, she contends that 
the changes resulted from a misunderstanding between her and her "assistant." In her NOID response, 
the Petitioner submitted a letter from her assistant, who prepared the response, and a copy of a text 
message she purportedly sent to him before this petition's filing. The text message states: 
The [USCIS] letter [regarding the Petitioner's first petition] mentioned that my 
involvement as a judge in 2 student competitions does not meet the required criteria. 
They stated that being a judge for student competitions is not acceptable. Therefore, 
please remove those instances and only include my role as a judge in competitions 
involving professionals. 
The Petitioner contends that she meant her text message to indicate her intent, in both a prior and the 
current petition, to abandon submitting evidence of her participation as a judge of others' work in the 
field. She stated: "What I mean is to delete the entire 'Judge Section' and not submit it as my 
evidence." In her assistant's letter, he stated: 
I mistakenly believed that I should delete the terms related to "students." I used the 
search function in [the word processing application] to remove these related terms. To 
my surprise, her actual intention was to completely remove the section about being a 
judge, as it did not meet the criteria and was not significant to her application .... Due 
to her high level of trust in me and the length of the document, she did not thoroughly 
review this part. 
The record, however, does not support the Petitioner's explanation. The text message does not indicate 
her purported intent to abandon trying to meet the judging criterion. Rather, the message instructs her 
assistant to "include my role as a judge in competitions involving professionals." If the Petitioner 
intended to abandon the criterion, she has not explained why she instructed her assistant to submit 
alternate evidence. See Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 754 (9th Cir. 2008); Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies). Also, as the Director found, none of 
the three extraordinary ability petitions that the Petitioner filed contain evidence that she judged 
professionals' work. Id. The Petitioner's explanation does not resolve the discrepancies in the English 
translations. Rather, the record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner knowingly submitted 
the false translations. 
The record also supports the materiality of the Petitioner's misrepresentation. We must examine 
misrepresentations under the circumstances existing when the false statements occurred. Canas v. 
INS, 243 F.3d 546 (Table) (9th Cir. 2000); Matter ofBosuego, 17 I&N Dec. 125, 128 (BIA 1979). At 
4 
the time of this petition's filing, the Petitioner did not yet know which evidentiary criteria USCIS 
would find that she meets or does not meet. Thus, her misrepresentation of the evidence regarding her 
participation as a judge of other's work "was predictably capable of affecting, i.e., had a natural 
tendency to affect, the official decision." Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771-72. 
Also, when signing the Form 1-140, Petition for Alien Workers, before the petition's filing, the 
Petitioner certified that she reviewed the petition and that all its information was "complete, true, and 
correct at the time of filing." The Petitioner's signature on the petition creates a "strong presumption" 
that she knew the filing's contents and assented to them. See Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 
664, 672 (BIA 2019). The statements of the Petitioner and her assistant that the Petitioner neglected 
to review the petition's relevant portion does not overcome the presumption that she knew the filing's 
contents. Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. at 500 ("Given the nature and significance of immigration 
documents, ... it is reasonable to expect that [ noncitizens] will take steps to ascertain the accuracy of 
documents they sign.") 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director also erred in finding insufficient evidence of her 
purported performance in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). She notes that, in her first petition, the Director found evidence not 
only of the Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(vi) but also of her 
performance in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
The Director, however, did not issue a precedent or adopted decision on the Petitioner's first petition. 
The decision therefore did not require the Director to follow the same findings in this or other petitions. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(c), 103.lO(b) (requiring USCIS to follow only precedent decisions in 
proceedings involving the same issues); see also Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 
593, 597 (Comm'r 1988) (allowing the immigration service to deny petitions indicating eligibility 
"merely because of prior approvals which may have been erroneous"). We therefore find the 
Petitioner's argument unpersuasive. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the Director's finding that, by submitting altered 
English translations of evidence, the Petitioner misrepresented material facts. 
D. Remaining Evidentiary Criteria 
As indicated above, the Petitioner states that she no longer seeks to meet the criterion regarding her 
participation as a judge of others in her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Also, we have rejected 
her argument that she performed in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Petitioner asks us to review whether she meets the 
following five other evidentiary criteria: 
• Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards; 
• Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements; 
• Original contributions of major significance; 
• Commandment of a high salary; and 
• Commercial successes in the performing arts. 
5 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), (ix), (x). 
On appeal, however, the Petitioner does not specify any errors in the Director's decisions regarding 
the five remaining evidentiary criteria. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) (requiring an appellant to 
"identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact"). Thus, as with the 
question of her intent to continue work in her field in the United States, we deem the issues of the 
remaining five evidentiary criteria to be "waived" and decline to review the Director's findings on 
them. See Rios, 807 F.3d at 1125 n.l; see also Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. 
Also, our decision regarding the Petitioner's intent to continuing working in her field in the United 
States resolves this appeal. Thus, even if she had specified errors and we could review the Director's 
decisions on the five remaining evidentiary criteria, we would have declined to reach those issues and 
would have instead reserved them. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their decisions); see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal 
where an applicant was otherwise ineligible). 
Further, as the Petitioner has not demonstrated satisfaction of at least three evidentiary criteria, USCIS 
need not conduct a final merits determination. Id. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record supports the Petitioner's misrepresentation of a material fact by submitting altered English 
translations of evidence. Also, she effectively waived challenge to the finding of insufficient evidence 
of her intent to continue working in her field in the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6