dismissed EB-1C Case: Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5829233 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 03, 2020 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as its general manager under the first 
preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, 
concluding that the record did not establish that (1) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States; (2) the Beneficiary had been employed in a managerial or 
executive capacity abroad; and (3) the Petitioner had the continuing ability to pay the proffered wage. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal based on 
its withdrawal by the Petitioner. We will also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of material 
fact against the Petitioner. 
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL 
On January 29, 2020, we sent the Petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID). We indicated in the 
NOID that the Petitioner submitted two bank statements in support of a prior L-lA nonimmigrant visa 
petition on behalf of the Beneficiary.1 We notified the Petitioner that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) spoke with a representative of the bank and confirmed that the 
submitted bank statements were altered and are not genuine. We noted that USCIS also received 
copies of the original bank statements from the bank. Alterations from the original statements included 
the account summary portions of each bank statement,2 the number and types of deposits and credits, 
the number and types of withdrawals and debits, the number of items in the previous cycle, the number 
1 Receipt numbed...__ ____ __, 
2 For example, one altered one bank statement shows an ending balance of $98,962.49 with a wire transfer of $49,993.27 
credited to the account that month. The actual account had an ending balance of $5,777.11 that month with no wire 
transfers credited to the account. Further, another altered bank statement shows an ending balance of "$1,43,858.84" [sic] 
with a wire transfer of $45,006.73 credited to the account that month. The actual account had an ending balance of 
$1,500.97 that month with no wire transfers credited to the account. 
of days in the cycle, and the average and daily ledger balances. The altered bank statements submitted 
by the Petitioner also omitted the checks written and copies of those checks, which were included with 
the original statements provided by the bank. 
The record in this case contains the same two altered bank statements that were included with the 
Petitioner's L-1A nonimmigrant visa petition for the Beneficiary. The Petitioner also submitted two 
additional statements containing altered account numbers, and copies of checks containing altered 
account numbers. The alterations are facially apparent as the [describe changes, font discrepancies, 
tonal changes, etc.]. Further, the Petitioner submitted wire transfer statements which purportedly show 
transfers into its bank account from the Petitioner's purported foreign parent company. The altered 
bank statements submitted by the Petitioner also indicate that those wire transfers occurred. However, 
the original bank statements that USCIS received from the bank show that no such wire transfers were 
ever made. 
In these proceedings, the Petitioner must establish its ability to pay the proffered wage as of the priority 
date continuing until the Beneficiary obtains lawful permanent residence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(2). The 
Petitioner asserts that it has the ability to pay the wage based on the submitted bank documentation. 
The Petitioner must also establish that it has a qualifying relationship with the Beneficiary's foreign 
employer. To establish a "qualifying relationship," the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary's 
foreign employer and the proposed U.S. employer are the same employer (a U.S. entity with a foreign 
office) or related as a "parent and subsidiary" or as "affiliates." See section 203(b)(1)(C) of the Act; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2). The Petitioner asserts that it is wholly owned by a company in India 
and that the Indian company invested $251,896.04 into the Petitioner by wire transfers into the 
Petitioner's U.S. bank account. 
The altered bank statements, checks, and wire transfer statements raise the question of whether the 
Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts regarding its ability to pay the proffered wage, and 
the foreign parent company's investment in and ownership of the Petitioner, by submitting fraudulent 
documentation. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. See Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's evidence also reflects on the reliability of the petitioner's 
remaining evidence. See id. We notified the Petitioner in the NOID that we intended to dismiss its 
case and enter a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation against it that based in part on this 
derogatory information. 3 We also stated that the Petitioner may submit additional evidence to rebut 
this information. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i). 
3 Immigration officers possess the full scope of authority accorded to officers by the relevant statutes, regulations, and the 
delegation of authority of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). See sections 101(a)(18), 
103(a), and 287(b) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.l(b), 287.5(a); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003). 
With regard to immigration fraud, the Act provides immigration officers with the authority to administer oaths and consider 
evidence, and it further provides that any person who knowingly or willfully gives false evidence or swears to any false 
statement shall be guilty of perjury. Section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b). Additionally, the Secretary of DHS 
has delegated to USCIS the authority to investigate alleged civil and criminal violations of the immigration laws, including 
application fraud; make recommendations for prosecution; and take other "appropriate action." DHS Delegation Number 
0150.1 at para. (2)(1). 
2 
In a response letter dated February 26, 2020, the Petitioner requested to withdraw the appeal and the 
underlying petition associated with the above-referenced Form l-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's withdrawal of its Form l-290B. A withdrawal may not be retracted 
and may not be refused. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(6); Matter of Cintron, 16 l&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1976). As 
USCIS has already issued an unfavorable decision on the petition, it may not be withdrawn. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(6). Instead, we construe the Petitioner's letter solely as a request to withdraw its appeal. 
II. WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF MATERIAL FACT 
While a request for withdrawal of the appeal precludes a decision on the merits, a withdrawal does not 
prevent us from entering a separate finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact where 
the Petitioner or the Beneficiary is found to have attempted to procure a visa through fraud or willful 
misrepresentation of material fact. We will enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of material 
fact against the Petitioner in this case. 
A finding of willful misrepresentation of material fact against a petitioner requires the following 
elements: 
I The petitioner procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws;4 
I The petitioner made a false representation;5 
I The false representation was willfully made;6 
I The false representation was material; 7 and 
I The false representation was made to a U.S. government official. 8 
See 8 USCIS Policy Manual J.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.; see also Matter of M-, 
6 l&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 l&N Dec. 288 (BIA 1975). 
Here, the Petitioner's actions rise to the level of willful misrepresentation of material fact as they meet 
all of the required elements. The Petitioner submitted altered bank statements, checks, and wire 
transfer statements in an effort to procure a visa for employment of the Beneficiary under the first 
preference immigrant classification for multinational executives or managers. See 
section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(C). Further, the Petitioner falsely and willfully 
represented that the altered documents were genuine, and the documents are material to the Petitioner's 
ability to pay the proffered wage and the foreign parent company's investment in and ownership of 
4 See 8 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at J.3(B). 
5 A misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation that is not in accordance with the true facts. A false 
representation may be made in oral interviews , written applications, or by submitting evidence containing false 
information . See 8 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at J.3(C); see also Legacy INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 
(April 30, 1991). 
6 See 8 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at J.3(D). 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 Healy and Goodchild , 
17 l&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA (1979). 
7 A material misrepresentation is a false representation concerning a fact that is relevant to the petitioner's eligibility for 
an immigration benefit. See 8 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at J.3(E). A material misrepresentation is one that "tends to 
shut off a line of inquiry relevant to" eligibility. Matter of Ng, 17 l&N Dec. 536,537 (BIA 1980). 
8 See 8 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at J.3(F); see also Matter of Y-G-, 20 l&N Dec. 794, 796 (BIA 1994). 
3 
the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner's submission of altered documents containing false 
information to USCIS constitutes a false representation to a government official. 
Thus, in addition to dismissing the appeal, we also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of 
material fact against the Petitioner. This finding of willful misrepresentation of material fact shall be 
considered in any future proceedings involving the Petitioner. 
111. RETRACTION 
The Petitioner's request to withdraw the appeal cannot be considered a timely and voluntary retraction 
of the Petitioner's false testimony in this case. See Matter of R-R-, 3 l&N Dec. 823 (BIA 1949); 
Matter of M-, 9 l&N Dec. 118 (BIA 1960). 9 For a retraction to be effective, it must be done 
"voluntarily and without prior exposure of [the] false testimony." Matter of R-R-, 3 l&N Dec. at 827; 
see Matter of Namio, 14 l&N Dec. 412, 414 (BIA 1973) (holding that recantation of false testimony 
one year after the event, and only after it, became apparent that the disclosure of the falsity of the 
statements was imminent, was not voluntary or timely). There has been no acknowledgement of the 
false testimony on the part of the Petitioner, nor a timely and voluntary correction of it. See Matter of 
M-, 9 l&N Dec. at 119. 
Counsel's request to withdraw the appeal following receipt of our NOID, without comment or 
evidence submitted to rebut the false testimony, does not have the effect of a recantation. As such, 
the Petitioner's request to withdraw the appeal does not preclude us from entering a finding of fact on 
the record, separate and apart from a decision on the merits, based on an attempt to procure a visa for 
employment of the Beneficiary under the first preference immigrant classification by willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Based on the foregoing, we will dismiss the appeal and enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of 
material fact against the Petitioner. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed based on its withdrawal by the Petitioner. 
9 The effect of a timely retraction is that the misrepresentation is eliminated as if it had never happened. Id. 
4