dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 4, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in journalism. 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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, but that he had not 
demonstrated that he has sustained national or international acclaim, that he is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that 
he has established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
I 
During the adjudication of the Petitioner's appeal, we received information that compromised the 
credibility of his claims. Accordingly, in June 2017, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) 
the appeal, to which the Petitioner did not respond. For the reasons discussed below, we will dismiss 
the appeal as abandoned and also 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, 
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
Matter of G-S-
least three of the ten categories of evidence 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).' 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our NOID, we advised the Petitioner that the evidence in the record and information obtained 
during an overseas investigation by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ~ervices (USCIS) raised 
serious questions regarding the credibility of his submitted evidence. We set forth the derogatory 
information that is detailed later in this decision, and provided the Petitioner an opportunity to 
respond. 
A. Appeal Abandoned 
We may dismiss an appeal if the Petitioner does not respond to our notice. The regulation provides, 
in pertinent part: 
If the petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of 
intent to deny by the required date, the benefit request may be summarily denied as 
abandoned, denied based on the record, or denied for both reasons. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l3)(i). Our NOID specifically informed the Petitioner that "[w]e may dismiss 
your case if we do not receive your response at the address at the top of this page within 33 days of 
the date of this NOID. This time period includes three days added for service by mail." 
(Emphasis in original.) To date, more than 33 days have lapsed, and we have yet to receive a 
response from the Petitioner on issues we discussed in the NOID. As such, we will dismiss the 
appeal as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l3)(i). 
B. Material Misrepresentations 
In the alternative, the Petitioner has not overcome derogatory information regarding the credibility of 
his submitted documentation. Accordingly, he has not established eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability and we find he has material misrepresented material facts. The Petitioner must 
resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
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 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 20 I 0). 
2 
.
Matter of G-S-
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. 
The regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) permits a petitioner to submit "[p ]ublished 
material about the alien in ... professional or major trade publications or other major media." In our 
· NOID, we noted that the Petitioner submitted an article about him entitled leading 
political journalism" 
in 2014, pages 43 and 44, which was allegedly 
written by In addition, the Petitioner provided a photograph of himself on page 
28. The investigating officer located an online archive of this magazine for the above period. It 
does not include the aforementioned article or photograph. The actual magazine pages 28, 43, and 
44 have been incorporated into the record of proceedings and were attached to the NOID. Moreover, 
the investigator contacted the purported author, who stated that he has never written an 
article about the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner also offered a 2013, article about him entitled ' 
· in (page 8). The investigating officer located the 
online archive for the magazine at http:/ a 
copy of which has been incorporated into the record of proceedings and a copy was attached to the 
NOID. It does not include the aforementioned article on page 8. 
Furthermore, we noted the Petitioner provided what appears to be an original printing of the Friday, 
2014, issue of the newspaper. However, it misspells Friday as "Firday" 
at the top of four of its pages, calling into question the authenticity of that submission as well. 
In addition, the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) permits a petitioner to submit 
evidence showing that he received "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. of endeavor." The Petitioner provided documentation. indicating that he 
received an (2013). The investigating officer contacted the 
Petitioner's former employer and spoke to semor reporter and manager of 
After inquiring with his colleagues, indicated that the staff was 
unaware that the Petitioner received such an award. He noted that would 
have covered the news of such a prestigious award being given to one of its employees. 
Moreover, the investigator contacted Secretary of the 
whose signature appears on the 
however, stated that he did not know the Petitioner. Furthermore, the investigating officer's review 
of the Petitioner's Facebook profile showed that the Petitioner mentioned having been awarded the 
' 2 but not the 
confirmed that the Petitioner received a ' (2012) at the 
3 
.
Matter of G-S-
Further, the Petitioner offered an October 2014 letter of support from 
chairman of the asserted that the 
Petitioner completed a term as chairman of the and was nominated as a special central 
committee member for a period of five years beginning in December 2012. The investigating officer 
contacted a well-known journalist and Secretary of the in 2013, who was 
able to confirm that the Petitioner received the ' from the 
organization, but indicated he is not aware of the Petitioner. This casts doubt on the Petitioner's 
claimed positions for The investigator also noted that because the number of political 
journalists in Nepal is extremely limited, it would be unusual that neither of the aforementioned 
senior journalists, or knew of the Petitioner. In addition, it calls into question 
the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that he is' in Nepal." 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from who was the and 
the head of the until his death in The investigating officer contacted 
personal assistant to who indicated that he has never heard of the 
Petitioner, nor is he aware of the having written or requested that a member of staff 
write a letter in support of the Petitioner's qualifications. Further, we noted that the English 
language translation of letter states that the letter was written in 2015, but 
the original in Nepali uses the Nepali year 2071, which is 2013. 
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 (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 ofKai 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 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 
4 
Matter of G-S-
misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter 
ofM-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter ofL-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Kai Hing Hut, 15 
I&N Dec. at 288. -
First, the Petitioner misrepresented his accomplishments and achievements, including his award, his 
press coverage, his positions with an association, and his overall standing in the field. 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. 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, 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 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). More specifically, the signature portion of Form 1-140, 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 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 misrepresentations regarding his award, press coverage, 
positions, and standing 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. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner did not respond to our NOID, he abandoned his appeal. In addition, we find the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought, and has made a willful 
misrepresentation of material facts. 
5 
Matter of G-S-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as abandoned pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 1 03.2(b)(l3). 
Cite as Matter ofG-S-, ID# 126764 (AAO Aug. 4, 2017)