remanded EB-1C Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16025470 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Petition for Multinational Managers or Executives 
The Petitioner, an information technology and software services company, seeks to permanently 
employ the Beneficiary as a "Principal , Business Consulting" 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). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition concluding the Petitioner did not establish 
that: (1) the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial or executive capacity prior to his entry 
into the United States as a nonimmigrant, and (2) the Beneficiary would be employed in a managerial 
or executive capacity in the United States. In addition , the Director determined that the Petitioner 
willfully misrepresented material facts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not acknowledge assertions and evidence 
submitted in response to the notice of intent to deny (NOID) and failed to articulate the deficiencies 
in this evidence. The Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary would qualify as a personnel manager in the 
United States and emphasizes that the Director incorrectly referred to his proposed "executive" 
capacity in their decision. The Petitioner also states that the Director did not provide sufficient analysis 
to justify the determination that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
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 1-140, 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. WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF MATERIAL FACTS 
To make a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact in immigrant petition proceedings, 
an immigration officer must determine: 1) that the petitioner 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 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 of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 
1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 l&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 l&N Dec. 536,537 (BIA 1980). 
In the section of the decision addressing willful misrepresentation, the Director stated only that "in 
this case the beneficiary did not properly address the NOID" after providing a comprehensive list of 
evidence it requested in the NOID for the Petitioner to demonstrate the Beneficiary's managerial or 
executive capacity abroad. However, the Director did not articulate how the Petitioner's evidentiary 
submittal was deficient or how its assertions represented willful and material misrepresentations to an 
authorized official of the United States government. The Director only noted certain discrepancies on 
the record and in the Beneficiary's immigration history, but did not sufficiently analyze how these 
assertions and the submitted evidence represented willful misrepresentations. Further, the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts while also stating that it was the 
"beneficiary" who did not properly address the NOID leaves substantial ambiguity as to whether the 
finding was being made against the Petitioner, the Beneficiary, or against both parties. 
For these reasons, the Director's decision is withdrawn and the matter will be remanded for further 
consideration, which should include issuance of a new notice of intent to deny if the new decision will 
include a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. The Director may request any 
additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2