dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

DATE: 
OCT 1 8 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
lJ.S. ('l1i/en.-;hip and Immigration Services 
Administralive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 M(l .... sacillJsCllS Ave., N.W., MS 209(J 
Washlllgton, DC 20.:'l2l)·2(NO 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigranl Pelilion for Alien Worker as a Memher of lhe Professions H()lding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursualllto Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. ~ 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this maller have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he made to that office. 
A withdrawal may not he retracted. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(6). If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied 
the law in reaching its finding of willful misrepresentation of a material facI, or you have addilional 
informalion Ihal you wish 10 have considered, you may rile a mOlion 10 reconsidn or a mol ion to rcopen in 
accordance with the instruclions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Molion, with a fcc Df $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.5. Do nol file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
k . CI .. :\.~ 
LL"-- . j- ,-.lA.A ~, 
P;rry Rhew C 
Chief. Administrative APreals Office 
www.uscis.goY 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant Visa 
petition. The petitioner appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). On 
September 5, 2012, in accordance with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § IOJ.2(b)(I6)(i), the AAO issued a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory 
information indicating that he submitted altered documentation, including books by others that he 
falsely claimed as his own work. In response, the petitioner asked to withdraw the petition. The AAO 
will acknowledge the petitioner's withdrawal of the appeal, and dismiss the appeal. The AAO will also 
enter a separate administrative finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
The petitioner filed a Form 1-140 petition on January 19, 2011, seeking classification pursuant to section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner claimed that he sought employment in 
"economies, management, land] teaching," and asserted that an exemption from the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. 
Section 2OJ(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
arc sought by an employer in the United States. 
(8) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The petitioner claimed that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the 
national interest. The petitioner willfully misrepresented facts in furtherance of that claim, and 
therefore the misrepresented facts are material to the petition. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Maller of New York 
State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), has set forth several 
factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, the 
petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of suhstantial intrinsic merit. Next the 
petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking 
Page :) 
the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree 
than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
The evidence that the petitioner has submitted to support his waiver claim includes several altered or 
fabricated documents. His initial submission included what purported to be a printout from the web site 
of the Royal Economic Society (RES). The printout reads, in part: 
~ Members of the Society 
Members are elected through a peer review process that culminates in a vote by 
existing Members. Each year 44 Members, 8 Foreign Members and up to 1 Honorary 
Fellow are elected from a group of over 700 candidates who are proposed by the 
existing Fellowship. Once elected, Members may use the postnominal FRS after their 
name, Foreign Members may use the postnominal ForMemRS after their name and 
Honorary Members may use the postnominal FRS after their name. 
Women make up about 5 percent of the Members. Over the last 10 years about 10 
percent of new Members elected to the Royal Economic Society have been women. 
The printout, like the reproduction above, used two different fonts in the text. Thc AAO consulted the current 
web site of the RES, hJl12:jJ.\vw'!:",res.mg.lIk. as well as archived versions of the site from htlp:!iweh.arcJ!iy,;;.org 
t1'om September 22. 2010 and May 19.2011 (dates shortly before and after the petition', JanllaJ") 19,2011 tiling 
date), The archived versions of the site include the following passage: 
~ Members of the Society visiting for the first time, please follow the instructions to 
register. Non-members are welcome to browse most areas of this site. We encourage 
you to take the opportunity to join the RES to get the full benefit of this site.' 
The phrase ':join the RES" on the web site is a link leading to the "Membership" page, which in tum invites 
readers to --apply for membership online. using a credit card.,·2 The current ml:mbership page lists no 
memhership requirements except the payment of an annual suhscription fee:1 The RES weh site, therdore, does 
not indicate that the RES is a highly exclusive organization that admits only a handful of new members each year. 
The AAO also found that the submitted language regarding the annual election of 44 memhers derived from the 
wehsitc not of the RES, but of the Royal Society, an cntirely separate organization with a similar name (and 
which is not limited to economics). The "Fellowship" page of the Royal Society'S web site indicates that the 
Royal Society's Fellowship "is made up of the most eminent scientists, engineers and technologists from the 
UK and the Commonwealth." That same page reads, in part: 
I hJ.t.r_:J~,>vdl ... ;,lr~h~:_t;--,~lJg':>~_l:'_b/2().1 W)92212()(2~_()/llttp:~li\\,wv"," re~.org. uki and hJJr.: .. il~yt,:tLilJlhivl:.Er-1i\yt;1)/~() I lOS 19225439/ 
h_tt_D_:,,/~~\y}\.rC_'iJ)Ig,_U};,:' (printouts added to record July 2, 2012). 
2 h_Pll;j .. \.vch.archi_\J:.:,QJg,/!v~J)i')() 1 (lC){J23!J12J.4]/hup:i iWW\V .rt:_~_,_l)rg. u k isocictv/mcm~!TiJli12,-'.l.~p (printout added lo record 
July 2, 2012) 
-~ htlp:/Lw.3Y~v. rcs.oq;.uk/\"il'\~::/S_conlcxtU rUvi_t;',~~:h.;ubscrip[i()nO l.html (printout added to record J lily 2, 2(12). 
Page 4 
Fellows are elected through a peer review process that culminates in a vote by 
existing Fellows. Each year 44 Fellows, 8 Foreign Members and up to 1 Honorary 
Fellow are elected from a group of over 700 candidates who are proposed by the 
eXisting Fellowship .... 
Once elected, Fellows may use the postnominal FRS after their name, Foreign 
Members may use the postnominal ForMemRS after their name and Honorary 
Members may use the postnominal FRS after their name. 
Women make up about 5 percent of the Fellowship .... Over the last 10 years about 
10 percent of new Fellows elected to the Royal Society have been women.' 
The petitioner inserted the above language from the R'Oyal Society's web site into language from the 
RES's web site, substituting the word "Member" for the word "Fellow," to create an altered printout 
purportedly from the RES web site. The alteration created the false impression that RES membership is 
an exclusive and prestigious honor bestowed by vote, rather than a simple matter of paying a 
subscription fee. The aiteration is material because the petitioner's admission into a highly exclusive 
society would demonstrate a degree of prestige and recognition in his field, potentially affecting his 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. Therefore, the aiteration of the printout irom the RES's 
web page constitutes willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
The AAO wrote to the petitioner on July 16. 2012. advising him of the AAO's intent to dismiss the 
appeal with a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact regarding his RES membership. 
In response, counsel stated: 
We feel that there is a strong basis to refute the [AAO's 1 position. Since we were only 
retained late in the day of July 31st, we hereby respectfully request that you provide us 
with an additional period of time to submit our client's response. Additionally. it will 
take some time to procure the necessary documentation from third parties such as the 
Royal Society and/or the Royal Economic Society. 
Additional time to respond to a request for evidence or notice of intent to deny may not be granted. 
8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(8)(iv). The record contains no substantive response to the AAC),s July 16,2012 
notice, and neither the petitioner nor counsel offered any facially plausible explanation for the 
demonstrable aiteration of the printout submitted with the petition. 
Further scrutiny of the record revealed numerous other instances of demonstrable, willl'ul aiteration 
and/or falsification of material evidence. The petitioner claimed authorship of two books, but this 
claim has not stood up to inquiry. The petitioner referred to his first claimed book, Corporate 
Governance & Financial Ejicienc}' [sic] of European Modern Banks, as his "main achievement.'· The 
-I b.11.[l>'/'fl)V,-!IslK'il'[v.orgiaboul-usiLl:llo\\,shipi (printout added to record July 2, 2(12). 
Page 5 
petitioner plagiarized large sections of the book from Financial Developm<'llt and Technical 
Efficiency: Georgian Banking in Transition, 1991-2000, a master's thesis presented in 2001 by 
Oregon State University student David Amaghlobeli.' 
The petitioner's second claimed book, The American Financial Fiasco: Can the American Economy 
Sllrvive?, is also the result of plagiarism. It is a repackaged version of Wall Street and the Financial 
Collapse: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, a report issued on April 13,2011 by the United States 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. The text shows traces of the alteration, which included removal of most (but 
not all) references to the subcommittee. Page 9 of the book reads, in part: 
In November 2008, we initiated investigation into some of the key causes of the 
financial crisis. Since then, the has [sic] engaged in a wide-ranging inquiry, issuing 
subpoenas, conducting over 150 interviews and depositions, and consulting with 
dozens of government, academic, and private sector experts. The We [sic] have 
accumulated and reviewed tens of millions of pages of documents, including court 
pleadings, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, trustee reports, 
prospectuses for public and private offerings, corporate board and committee minutes, 
. d I " mortgage transactlOns an ana yses. 
The petitioner also claimed to be the author of an article, "Socialism vs. Social Democracy as 
Income- Institutions," which appeared in the Eastern Economic JOllrnal in 2008. The 
actual In an altered printout in the record, the petitioner substitute his 
name for but left intact credentials including a research position at Yale 
University, an institution with which the petitioner otherwise claimed no affiliation. 
The petitioner submitted an altered printout of the online table of contents said to be from the Winter 
2008 issue of The International Economy. The table listed the petitioner as the author of "Corporate 
Governance and Financial Efficiency of European Modern Banks," The cover of the issue shows 
with the caption "Is Today 1935"" The cover art and list 
of articles actually correspond to the Winter 2006, not 2008, issue of The International Economy. 
The petitioner altered the list of articles by changing the date and by replacing a reference to "The 
Cox Revolution" by Christopher Whalen with a fabricated title and his own name. s 
The petitioner submitted what 
Analysis (DEA)," identified as 
phot()copy of an article called "Data Envelopment 
review of the petitioner's first book in The 
~ The thesis is availahle at IWp::'/i r.!ihran:_,m~gonstalc.C(JU/~Jnl!-:liL12itstrcam/hanJlc/ I i):)7iZCJ3.2]li\maghl~_heliP.;JyjJ20{)2.rdr 
(excerrts added to record August 29, 20(2). 
(, The original report is availahle at h.tJ.rri/hsgac.scn-'JL~,gQy/puhlic/ filcs/FinalJ~.L(LL('rl'jj,~.JjD~LD.l:jal(_·~i.shR~r~~[L.mj_! 
(excerpts added to record August 29, 2(12). 
-; The abstract is available at bJll\//!~:yyw,pall.!raY{2ji]urna!:-,.C()m/c0jnvXtHl/v34/n !/abs/90S!XJJ JAJ_!,tml (printout audeLi to 
record August 29, 2(12). 
tl Thc article list and cover art afC available online at hltp:!!ww\v.intcrnational-ccommn:.com/\Vinter2006archivc.htm 
(printout added to record August 29, 2(12). 
Page 6 
a heavily altered version of "Georgia on My 
revIew Necroeconomics, which appeared in the 
Winter 200f) edition of The International £conomy. The year "2006" is missing Irom the issue date 
in the copy, but the original page numbers and fragments of the original text remain." 
The petitioner also submitted an altered abstract from American £conomic Review, Vol. 99, No.5, 
December 2009. The petitioner's printout identifies the citing article as "Corporate Governance and 
Financial Eficiency [sic] of European Modern Banks" by and Below 
the title is an "Article Citation," an instruction on how to eite the article in a bibliography. The title 
listed in the "Article Citation" does not match the title that appears above it. It reads: "_ 
••• and 2009. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA); .. Otar, Koraia., DEA­
Method in practice American Economic RCl'iew, 99(5): 2012-21 [sic]." The title and the 
petitioner's name are in a visibly different typeface from the remaining text of the "Article Citation." 
The same visibly different typeface also appears in the abstract, which begins: "DEA is remarkable 
a non-parametric linear programming technique .. ,. " 
_ and _ are the true authors of the article, but its actual title is "On the Possibility of Credit 
Rationing in the Stiglitz-Weiss Model." 10 Unlike the petitioner's submission, the "Article Citation" 
is consistent with the article's title, with a consistent typeface throughout. The abstract does not 
mention DEA or the petitioner's work. 
On September 5, 2012, the AAO issued a second notice to the petitioner. The notice rcad, in part: 
[T]he AAO has positively identified four altered documents and three plagiarized 
writings, all of them falsified to inflate your claimed reputation as an economist. The 
AAO cannot approve your petition in the face of such pervasive and systematic 
misrepresentation. By listing seven specific documents in this notice, the AAO does 
not mean to stipulate or imply that the AAO considers the remaining materials (such 
as witness lctters or your claimed "Honor" Medal from the Georgian government) to 
be authentic. It is not clear what legitimate credentials, if any, you hold as an 
economist. 
All of the altered, falsified, and/or plagiarized documents in the record are material to 
your claim of eligibility for the national interest waiver, because you claim that the 
materials establish the nature and extent of your contributions to Ihe field of 
economics, Therefore, your submission of those materials constitutes willful 
misreprescntation of a material fact. As the AAO advised in its previous letter, any 
alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or 
has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into 
'J The original article is available at http:i\v\vw.intcrrUttiooal-ccnJlomy.eomlrIF W06 Aslund.pd[ (printout added to 
recoru August 29, 2(12). 
III The original abstract is available at http: /W\V\VA£1iweb.orgiarticlcs.Qlm~~~oi~1O.12S7/acf.~.9.;;._2(JI2 (printout added to 
record August 29, 2(12). 
Page 7 
the United States or other benefit provided under this Aet is inadmissible. Section 
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 18 U.S.c. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
Absent independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, the 
above finding, the AAO will dismiss the appeal and enter a formal finding of material 
misrepresentation into the record. USCIS can consider this finding of material 
misrepresentation in future proceedings in which your admissibility is an issue. You 
have the right to withdraw your appeal, but a withdrawal will not negate or prevent a 
finding that you have already (by submitting the above materials in support of your 
petition) sought to procure immigration benefits through willful misrepresentation of 
material facts. 
In a letter dated September 12,2012, the petitioner notified the AAO of his "wish to withdraw [the) 
appea\." The petitioner did not address or dispute any of the AAO's assertions regarding his submission 
of altered documentation in support of his petition. 
The AAO will acknowledge the withdrawal of the appeal, but, as the AAO advised in its earlier notices, 
the withdrawal of the appeal does not prevent a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
That finding is administratively separate from the disposition of the appeal, and will affect any future 
tiling on the petitioner's behalf. The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15) provides: 
"Withdrawal [of a prior benefit request) ... shall not itself affect the new proceeding; bllt the facts 
and circllmstances sllrrollndinR the prior benefit reqllest shall otherwise be material to the new 
benefit reqlll'St." (Emphasis added.) 
Section 204(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
After an investigation of the facts in each case ... the [Secretary of Homeland 
Security 1 shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that 
the alien ... in behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative specified 
in section 201(b) or is eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 
203, approve the petition .... 
Under the above section of the Act, USCIS has the authority to issue a determination regarding whether 
the facts stated in a petition filed pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act are true. In this case, the record 
shows that the petitioner submitted false documents, a finding that the petitioner has failed to overcome 
despite being advised of the derogatory information in two AAO notices. 
Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to 
procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other 
benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.s.c. 
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
Page H 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that 
the alien willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hillg Hlli, IS I&N Dec. 
288, 2il9-90 (BiA 1(75). 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 I 99il); 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 whieh is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and whieh might well have resulted in 
a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 19i1O). 
Accordingl y, 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 
misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter 
oj'M-, n I&N Dec. 149 (BiA 1954); Matter oj'L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter ofKai Hillg 
Hlli, 15 I&N Dec. at 2ilil. 
First, the petitioner submitted plagiarized and/or falsified books, articles, and related materials to 
USC IS. 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's submission of the 
preceding falsified documents in support of the Form 1-140 petition constitutes a false representation 
to a government official. 
Second, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. The petitioner 
signed the Form 1-140 petition, 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 the Form 1-140, at part 8, 
requires the petitioner to make the following atlirmation: "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." Furthermore, with regard to the plagiarized books, the petitioner cannot have been 
under the sincere but mistaken impression that he wrote the material in the books falsely attributed to 
him. Placing his name on a Senate subcommittee report, thereby claiming authorship, can only have 
been a willful (rather than a mistaken or accidental) act on his part. On the basis of the petitioner's 
actions, including his affirmation made under penalty of perjury, the AAO finds 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 predictabl y capable of affecting the decision of the dccision­
making body. KlIllgyS v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (19ilil). 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 
Matter (lfNg, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. 
Page l) 
As the falsified documents relate to the petitioner's past record in his field, as contemplated in 
NYSDOT at 22 I&N Dec. 219, they are material to this proceeding. Accordingly, the AAO concludes 
that the misrepresentations were material to the petitioner's eligibility. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting altered and falsified documents in support of that 
petition, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. This finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be 
considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. I I 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the appeal. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts 
by knowingly submitting falsified documents in an effort to mislead 
USCIS and the AAO on an element material to his eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States. 
J j It is important to note that while it may prescnt the opportunity to enter an administrative finding of willful material 
misrepresentation, the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum [or finding an alien inadmissihlc. See Matter 
of (), 8 I&N Dec. 2Y5 (1l1A 1959). Instead. Ihe alien may be found inadmissible at a later date when he subsequently 
applies for admission into the United States or applies for adjustment of status to permanent resident status. :',ee sections 
212(,,) and 245(a) of the Act. 8 U.S.c. §§ 1182(a) and I 255(a).