dismissed EB-1C Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23809477 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 21, 2022 
Form I-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner identifies itself as an engineering consultant operation and seeks to permanently employ 
the Beneficiary as its president under the first preference immigrant classification for multinational 
executives or managers. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(C), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(C). This classification allows a U.S. employer to permanently transfer a qualified foreign 
employee to the United States to work in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish statutory eligibility for the benefit sought. 1 The Director entered a separate finding of willful 
misrepresentation against the Petitioner, concluding that the Petitioner misrepresented the Beneficiary's 
job off er and place of employment as well as pertinent information regarding the Beneficiary's 
employment abroad. 2 The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen and reconsider, which the Director 
denied, reiterating the prior analysis and finding of willful misrepresentation and concluding that the 
finding was properly made . The Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen and reconsider, which also 
resulted in a denial based on the determination that the Petitioner did not overcome the finding of willful 
misrepresentation. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 The Director concluded thatthePetitioner did not provide evidence showing that: I) it has a qualifying relationship with 
the Beneficiary's claimed foreign employer ; 2) the Beneficiary was employed in a managerial or executive capacity abroad; 
3) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial or executive capacity in the United States ; 4) the Petitioner had 
been doing business in the United States for at least one year prior to filing this petition; 5) the Petitioner is am ultinational 
entity that does business through a parent, subsidiary, or branch office a broad; and 6) the Petitioner has the ability to pay 
the Beneficiary's proffered wage . 
2 Although the Director's finding was for "fra ud and willful misrepresentation ," the Director did not list the elements of 
fraud , which are not identical to the elements ofwillfulmisrepresentation, nor did he include an analysis explaining how 
the Petitioner 's actions constituted fraud . SeeMatter ofG-G-, 7 I&NDec.161 (BIA 1956) (statingthatto constitutefiaud 
the false representation must have been believed and acted upon by the officer) . The Director therefore did not effectively 
make a finding of fraud and we need not further address this finding in the matterathand. 
I. LAW 
An immigrant visa is available to a beneficiary who, in the three years preceding the filing of the 
petition, has been employed outside the United States for at least one year in a managerial or executive 
capacity, and seeks to enter the United States in order to continue to render managerial or executive 
services to the same employer or to its subsidiary or affiliate. Section 203(b)(l )(C) of the Act. 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must include a statement from an authorized 
official of the petitioning United States employer which demonstrates that the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity for at least one year in the three years preceding 
the filing of the petition, that the beneficiary is coming to work in the United States for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer, and that the prospective U.S. employer 
has been doing business for at least one year. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(3 ). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue to be addressed is whether the Petitioner filed a petition falsely claiming to have satisfied 
the requirements of a first preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or 
managers as described above. 
To make a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact 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)thatthe fact misrepresented was material. See MatterofM-, 6 I&NDec. 149 (BIA 1954); 
Matter ofL-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961 ); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 1975). 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires that one 
willfully makes a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 289-90. 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 ojHealy 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 of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536,537 (BIA 1980). 
In the Director's latest decision, the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider was denied based on 
the conclusion that the Petitioner did not overcome a finding of willful misrepresentation, which 
stemmed from a fraudulent Form I-140 that was filed by the Petitioner through its administrative 
managerJ I The Director discussed the pertinent facts in this matter, pointing out that 
the Form I-140 was signed by I whom the Petitioner appointed as a company official 
with signatory authority that enabled her to file immigrant petitions on the Petitioner's behalf. The 
Director further noted that the Petitioner is responsible for petitions containing the signature of an 
authorized official of its organization and, because I I was such an official at the time this 
petition was filed, the Petitioner is accountable for the current petition. 
2 
The Petitioner admits on appeal that the petition in question contains material misrepresentations and 
that it was filed by I in her authorized capacity as a personnel officer of the petitioning 
organization. However, the Petitioner argues that I I acted fraudulently when she signed 
the petition, thus indicating that I in her personal capacity, rather than in her capacity as 
an officer of the organization, is responsible for the wrongful act. 
In support of this argument, the Petitioner provides evidence that it filed a civil lawsuit alleging that 
I I engaged in a conspiracy to file fraudulent immigration forms, which resulted in the 
Petitioner's withdrawal of employment petitions filed on behalf of its president and general manager. 
However, the Petitioner has not provided evidence showing that lassumed signatory 
authority fraudulently or without the Petitioner's knowledge. Despite filing a civil complaint against 
I I allegingwrongdoinginherfiling of immigration forms, we take administrative notice 
that the publicly available docket for the Petitioner's civil suit indicates that it was closed on 
D 2020, after the parties agreed and stipulated to its dismissal. 3 
Further, the argument that the Petitioner was unaware of the petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary 
does not overcome the presumption that the corporate Petitioner, by virtue of having give 
I I authority to sign immigration documents on its behalf, in effect had knowledge of the 
petition. Cf Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496 (BIA 2018) (establishing that signature on an 
application creates a strong presumption of knowledge about the application's contents, which can be 
rebutted by establishing fraud, deceit, or other wrongful acts by another person). The Petitioner has 
not met its burden in rebutting this presumption .. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In sum, the Petitioner does not contest that a petition containing material misrepresentations was filed 
on its behalf by an officer or employee of its organization. On this basis alone, this petition cannot be 
approved, and the appeal must be dismissed. Further, as previously noted, the Petitioner has not 
established that I assumed signatory authority through a wrongful act. Therefore, we 
will affirm the Director's finding of willful misrepresentation against the Petitioner. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Although the petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility for the benefit sought, USCIS has the right to verify 
information submitted to meetthatburden. See generally sections 103,204,205,291 of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § § 1103, 1154, 
1155, 1361. Agency verification methods may include but are not limited to the following: review of public records and 
information; contact via written correspondence, the I ntemet, facsimile or other electronic transmission, or telephone; 
unannounced physical site inspections of residences and places of employment; and interviews. See Form I-140 
Instmctions at 9 (03/QS/13) The A AO herebv incorporates iota the record af proceeding a printout from the publicly 
availabledocketfoJ I 
1 12020). 
3