dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 13212583 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 9, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an education specialist, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center initially approved the petition. However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval, concluding that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification, would be in the national interest. In addition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts in support of her petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she is eligible for a national interest waiver and that she did not 
willfully misrepresent material facts. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203 (b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(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 are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he 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. 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
may, as matter of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national impmiance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job off er or for the petitioner too btain a labor ce1iification; whether, even assuming 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USCJS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
2 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
With respect to revocations, section205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pe1iinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board oflmmigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for"good and sufficient cause" where the evidenceofrecord 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The next issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. In revoking 
the approval of the petition, the Director decided that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for 
any of the three prongs under the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
A. National Interest Waiver 
The first prong relates to substantial merit and national importance of the specific proposed endeavor. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In her initial cover letter, the Petitioner claimed: 
I am an Education Specialist who has done extensive research into moral education, 
specifically, the moral development of teachers and students, and I have distinguished 
myself on the international level through my research. Education is an area that focuses 
3 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
3 
on more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. It is one of the most important 
investments that a country can make in its people and its future and is crucial to 
reducing poverty and inequality .... 
The importance of education is recognized on the highest level, because education is 
essential for the U.S. economy. This is why my services as an innovative expert in the 
area of Education with particular focus on professionalization of teachers will be 
especially valuable in the United States. My passion for the development of better 
education method and education psychology is supported by my proven ability in my 
field and will be of great benefit for the national interest in the U.S. economy. 
In the notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), the Director informed the Petitioner that she did "not provide 
specific insight as to what she intends to do as a[ n] Educational Specialist in the education field or 
provide specific insight into the research she intends to conduct as a researcher in the field of 
education." Further, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not off er sufficient evidence 
relating to the substantial merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor. In response, the 
Petitioner claimed: 
My intentions as an education specialist in the United States are to develop a character 
education program geared toward Asian Americans, which will provide a 
psychological support system and character education for Asians who have recently 
immigrated to the United States. The research I plan to conduct will be tailored to the 
development of this program. 
I have accumulated my expertise on education through years of experience, and based 
on my expertise, the ultimate goal of my research is to develop a psychological support 
system and education program for Asians who have recently immigrated to the U.S., 
and for Asians who have just started studying in the U.S.; I would like to provide 
practical assistance to these populations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her "proposed endeavor is to develop a character education 
program geared towards Asian Americans, which will provide a psychological support system and 
character education for Asians who have recently immigrated to the United States." 
As indicated above, the Petitioner initially proposed to "focus on professionalization of teachers." 
However, in response to the Director's NOIR and on appeal, the Petitioner claims "to develop a 
character education program geared toward Asian Americans" and "to develop a psychological 
support system and education program for Asians who have recently immigrated to the U.S., and for 
Asians who have just started studying in the U.S." Here, the Petitioner materially changed her 
proposed endeavor from professionalizing teachers to character education for Asian Americans. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 103 .2(b )(1). 
4 
Moreover, a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a 
new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1988). That decision further 
provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly, we 
will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of character education for 
Asian Americans, as well as the related supporting evidence, and will adjudicate the record based upon 
her initially proposed endeavor. 
At initial filing, while she claimed to "focus on professionalization of teachers," the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient information and details to reflect a specific proposed endeavor as contemplated in 
Dhanasar. Instead, the Petitioner emphasized her past educational and professional achievements 
without elaborating and explaining how she intended to professionalize teachers in the United States. 
The Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar 
framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner does not indicate that she intends to continue to pursue this proposed 
endeavor of professionalizing teachers, which was the original basis of her petition. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner also did not demonstrate the substantial merit and national 
importance of her endeavor. The Petitioner made broad arguments regarding the overall importance 
of education and the education system of the United States but did not explain the potential impact or 
influence her endeavor of professionalizing teachers would have on education in the United States. 
Further, the record contains an article from edudemic.com pertaining to differences between education 
in South Korea and the United States and an article from koreatimes.co.kr reporting on President 
Barack Obama praising the South Korean education system. However, the Petitioner did not show 
how the articles relate to her proposed endeavor of professionalizing teachers; neither article discusses 
professionalizing teachers as part of the South Korean education system. 
Because she did not provide specific details, support the record with sufficient documentation, and 
show that she intends to pursue her initial endeavor, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the substantial 
merit and national importance of her proposed endeavor. For these reasons, the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor does not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Further analysis of eligibility 
under the second and third prongs, therefore, would serve no meaningful purpose. In fact, the 
Petitioner does not make any arguments on appealrelatingto the Director's decision of the third prong. 
If the affected party does not address issues raised by the director, and those issues are dis positive of 
the case, the appeal will be dismissed based on those waived issues. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 
I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
B. Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact 
The Director determined that the Petitioner misrepresented her professional experience. 
1. Employment History 
The Petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on April 6, 2015, indicating in 
Part 6 (Basic Information About the Proposed Employment) her job title as "Education Specialist'' 
5 
and nontechnical description ofjob as"[ c ]onduct research and teach courses pertaining to education, 
such as counseling, curriculum, guidance, instruction." 
On the accompanying ETA 750 Part B, item 15 requires a petitioner to "[l]ist all jobs held during the 
last three (3) years" and "[a]lso, list any other jobs related to the occupation for which the alien is 
seeking certification as indicated in item 9 [ occupation in which alien is seeking work]." Here, ETA 
750 Part B required the Petitioner to list all employment from April 2012 to April 2015, as well as any 
other jobs related to the occupation. The Petitioner, however, did not specify any employment in the 
three-year timeframe. Instead, the Petitioner respondeµitb,employment outside of this period as a 
"Specialized Researcher" atl IUniversityL-J from March 2009 to July 2009 and as a 
"Researcher" at~from March 2009 to February 2010. 
Fmiher, in the initial cover letter, the Petitioner claimed that she has "worked as [a] Specialized 
Researcher for the Research Team of the,__ ____ ___, church since 2010 in South Korea." The 
cover letter, however, did not support her claims on ETA 750 Part B; the Petitioner did not include 
any employment with thel I Church on ETA 750 PartB. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted her curriculum vitae that reflected employment within the three­
year timeframe that was not included on the ETA 750 Part B. For example, the Petitioner indicated 
an instance of "Lecture Experience" atc=]from September 2012 to February 2013 and three 
instances of "Lecture Experience" a~d I I University from March 2012 to August 
2012. 4 Moreover, the Petitioner listed "Research Experience" as a "Specialized Researcher" with the 
"Research Team of the.__ _____ _. Church" from March 2010 to December 2011, which 
contradicts her cover letter claim that she has worked as a specialized researcher with thel I I I Church since 2010. 5 
In the NOIR, the Director concluded: 
The petitioner claimed in her petition to be an education researcher since 1997. 
However, the evidence indicates that she has only been lecturing education psycho logy 
at various universities as a part-time lecturer after she earned her PhD degree, which 
she obtained in 2009, and she has not been involved with research after graduation in 
over 20 years .... 
Although the Director stated that the Petitioner has only been lecturing part-time since her graduation 
in 2009, her cmriculum vitae indicates that she has been lecturing since 2000. Further, while the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner has not been involved in research after graduation in over 20 
years, both the ETA 750 Part B and curriculum vitae claim research involvement withc=J from 
March 2009 to February 2010, and her curriculum vitae and cover letter asserts research with the 
,__ ____ ~Church from March 2010 to December 2011. 
4 The Petitioner lists 32 other lecturing experiences from 2000-2012. 
5 The Petitioner lists 11 other research experiences from 1997 - 2010, including as a researcher withO from Match 
2009 to Februaiy2010, which corresponds with her answers on ETA 750PartB. 
6 
In reply to the NOIR, the Petitioner claimed: 
In response to the assertion that I have not been involved in research since graduation, 
I have provided additional documentary evidence to negate that claim. In 2011, I 
erformed and roduced the results of a research stud entitle 
This 
study was conducted in response to a survey on the faith o_..__ _ __,..youthin thel I 
Church, and took an in depth look into the religious consciousnessofl I teenagers. 
It was a first of its kind study that the I I church was able to utilize in 
tailoring its approach to Sunday School to optimize the educational experiences .... 
The Petitioner also submitted two articles reporting on the survey and a letter from! 
professor atO who stated that "[t]hrough the 
I I conducted._j_o-in_t_ly-w-it_h_m_e-in_2_0_1 _0,-[-th_e_P-et-it-io_n_e_r_]_, w-a-s -ab_l_e_to_. 
write up, publish, and present a report .... " 6 
In revoking the approval of the petition, the Director noted that the survey report was not listed on her 
cuniculum vitae, nor was it mentioned in a previous letter froml O I and determined that 
"[ e ]ven if USCIS viewed the conducted research in 2011 as credible ... , her employment history is 
still inconsistent with her claim of being a full-time researcher." Furthermore, the Director concluded 
that the "petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that she did not misrepresent her professional 
experience as a full-time researcher." In addition, the Director stated that "the record contains copies 
of the 
1
etitioner's Certificate of Career (CoC), which are official documents from Employers in 17 
I _ showing that she worked as a part-time lecturer from March 2009 to August 2009 atc==J 
University and I University, "USCIS notes that there are other COCs in the record that reflect 
part-time teaching positions and reflects jobs inAprilof2012 that should have been articulated in item 
15 on ETA 750 Part B," and "[t]he COCs indicate the petitioner did not conduct research and did not 
work 40 hours per week." 
A review of the COCs reflects the Petitioner's employment as a paii-time lecturer/instructor from: 
March 2002 to June 2014 atl I University, March 2005 to February 2013 atD and 
September 2011 to August2012 atl I University, which were not listed on her ETA 750 Part 
B..W~J;10te that the Petitioner is listed as a "Visiting Researcher" from March 2009 to February 2010 
atL_J 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues: 
The ETA 750B indicates that I "Conduct Research and teach courses pertaining 
education", but despite the fact that my hours as a lecturer were only part-time, I did in 
fact conduct research full time, and have submitted examples of my research, which I 
performed concurrently, in response to the NOIR to corroborate this fact. I was an 
independent full-time researcher whose actual lecturing duties were conducted on a 
part-time basis. As such, I did not willfully misrepresent my professional experience. 
6 The Petitioner also presented evidence of research conducted in 2019, which occurred after she filed her petition. 
7 
The Petitioner, however, did not explain why she omitted her work experience as a part-time lecturer 
at various universities on her ETA 750 Part B during the required three-year timeframe. Moreover, 
while the record sufficiently shows that she worked as a researcher from March 2009 to Februaty 
2010 at~ the Petitioner did not support her assertions that she has "worked as a S ecialized 
Researcher for Research Team of thd i[C]hurch since 2010 in ' In fact, 
the record does not demonstrate that she has ever worked for the Church as a 
specialized researcher; the record does not contain employment verification from the.__ _____ _. 
Church of her claimed em,2!2._y,ment. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that she performed in a 
research capacity after herL_J employment in 20 IO or that she was employed as an independent full­
time researcher prior to her filing the petition. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not overcome the 
Director's decision concluding that she willfully made misrepresentations of material facts regarding 
her professional experience. 
2. Translation and Research Project 
In the NOIR, the Director stated: 
Authorized officials of[the 
1
.s. De]aiimentof Sta~e] verifieThetwo papers published 
in professional Journals in in 2008 (Th Journal of the Human 
Development, Thel I Journal of Educational Psychology). However, in the 
translation, the petitioner was listed as one of two researchers but the originall I 
version shows she was one of two research assistants. The two actual researchers 
shown in the original are omitted in the translation. Thus, it appears that the petitioner 
misrepresented her professional experience and achievements. 
In response, the Petitioner contended: 
I am, in fact, listed as an author on both of the above-referenced journal articles. I have 
in no way misrepresented my authorship. Moreover, the English printouts of these two 
articles are the actual English versions and not my translations. However, testimonial 
evidence that I aGJ, in fact, a co-author on both of these publications is presented byD 
I the lead author on both studies. 
In revoking the approval of the petition, the Director concluded: 
The petitioner did not submit evidence to clarify the reason the translation did not 
reflect the actual researchers and job titles on the article in the foreign language. 
Without clarification and evidence to reconcile the inconsistency between the 
translation and original, it appears that the petitioner misrepresented her professional 
expenence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues: 
The evidence I submitted shows that there is no issue with the 2008 paper, which the 
consul or investigator claimed to have a translation error. As for the 2000 Ministty of 
Education research rep01i, it appears that the consul or investigator has been mistaken. 
8 
The list of researchers' names appears in two occasions in that very report, and one can 
see that all five researchers' names were translated/presented there. Therefore, the 
consul's or investigator's claim is not correct because the co-researcher's name was 
not intentionally omitted. Regarding the title, "researcher" is a correct translation 
because I conducted the research together as a member of the research team. The 
grouped! I characters [] is translated in English as "Research Team Member (or 
Group Member)". [] is properly translated as "Research" and [] is properly translated 
as "Team Member" or "Group Member". If one is not fluent in I I however, 
he/she could easily misinterpret [] to mean '·Assistant". 
The Director's NOIR and revocation stated that the Petitioner's translations of her two 2008 articles 
incorrectly listed her as one of two researchers when she was one of two research assistants, and the 
two actual researchers were omitted in the translation. However, the record reflects that the U.S. 
Embassy! I referred to the translation and position titles in the 2000 research project sponsored 
by the Ministry of Education entitled, I I' rather than the 
translations and position titles of the Petitioner's two 2008 articles. Specifically, the memorandum 
from the U.S. Embassy stated: 
Besides her MA thesis and PhD dissertation, there are only 2 publications included in 
the petition. [The Frau Pr ntion Unit] verified the two papers published in 
professional Journals in in 2008 (The I I Journal of the Human 
Development, Th .__ _ ____,Journal of Educational Psychology). However, they were 
submitted with other members fromD including [her] PhD dissertation advisor, 
I I as the first author. After mentioning about her authorship for books 
and translation as well as publishing articles in university and scientific journal, [the 
Petitioner] claimed that "This experience has helped me become one of a few students 
who were elected to participate in state-sponsored research projects such as j I 
I O 1 ~ I for the Ministry of Education in I t 
However, the exhibit indicates that her participation in the project actually happened in 
2000 which was prior to all of the mentioned books and articles. Moreover, in the 
translation, she is listed as one of 2 researchers when the original I Ivers ion shows 
she was one of 2 research assistants fromc=J The 2 actual researchers shown in the 
original are omitted in the translation. 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner's brief, as indicated above, challenges the U.S. Embassy's 
findings regarding the translation and role with the 2000 research project. However, the Petitioner did 
not support her assertions with independent, objective evidence. She did not, for example, submit a 
new certified translation in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(3 ), or other evidence corroborating 
her role with the project. Without probative evidence establishing that she performed work as a 
researcher rather than as a research assistant on the project, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she 
did not willfully make misrepresentations of material facts regarding her professional experience. 
3. Determination 
The Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
9 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. As the Petitioner has not overcome all 
of the derogatory information contained in the Director's decision, we will enter a determination of a 
material misrepresentation of material facts. 
In general, a few en-ors 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 en-ors and discrepancies, and 
the petitioner fails to resolve those en-ors 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 lead us to conclude 
that the evidence of the Petitioner's professional experience, which is material to her eligibility under 
the Dhanasar analytical framework, is neither true nor credible. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires that the 
individual willfully make a material misstatementto a government official for the purpose of obtaining 
an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. See Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 
289-90 (BIA 1975). The tenn "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished from 
accidentally, inadve1iently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See MatterofTijam, 22 
I&N Dec. 408,425 (BIA 1998);MatterofHealy and Goodchild, 17 I&NDec. 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 m a proper 
determination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 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 misrepresentation was willfully 
made; and 3)thatthe factmisrepresentedwasmaterial. SeeMatterofM-, 6 I&NDec. 149 (BIA 1954); 
Matter ofL-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961 ); Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
First, the Petitioner misrepresented her professional experience as discussed above. 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). 
Second, the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentations. The Petitioner signed the Form I-140 
and ET A 7 50 Part B, certifying under penalty of perjury that her petition and the evidence submitted 
with it are all true and con-ect. 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 I-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," and 
the signature portion of ETA 750 Part B, at item 16, requires the Petitioner to make the following 
declaration: "I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and con-ect." On the basis of this 
affirmation and declaration, made under penalty of perjury, we conclude 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 cap ab le 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, 1 7 I&N 
Dec. at 53 7. Here, the misrepresentations regarding her professional experience relate to the second 
prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework; and therefore, are material to her eligibility. 
Accordingly, by filing the instant petition, making false representations, and omitting information, 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 has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that she has not demonstrate her eligibility for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver 
as a matter of discretion. In addition, by filing the instant petition and making material 
misrepresentations relating to her professional experience, the Petitioner sought to procure a benefit 
provided under the Act through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. This finding may be 
considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. The appeal will be dismissed for 
the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11