dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 27, 2024 In Re: 31999880 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
advanced degree professional, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this 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 denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner established 
he is an advanced degree professional but did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus that the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on 
appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Once a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying classification, the petitioner must then establish 
eligibility for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest 
waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as a 
matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. at 889. 
II. NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, 2 reasserting his eligibility and contends the Director's 
decision: ignored relevant evidence; failed to understand the Petitioner's proposed endeavor; failed 
to consider the "multiplier effect of increased economic activity" that would arise from his endeavor 
that goes beyond creating 11 direct jobs; and failed to consider that his endeavor would "address the 
steep shortage of engineering professionals." We disagree with the Petitioner's contentions and adopt 
and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see 
also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of adopting and 
affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely 
confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit courts in holding 
that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give 
"individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Director summarized the evidence and analyzed why it did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. In so doing, the Director carefully considered the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor, as described in his business plan, which is to build a company that provides asset integrity 
management and consulting services to companies working in various industries. The Director also 
considered the claimed economic projections and workforce impacts described in the Petitioner's 
evidence. However, quoting our decision in Dhanasar, the Director correctly explained that the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will 
work; but rather "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Dhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. at 889. As such, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's 
eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director erred by disregarding that his endeavor will advance and 
innovate in key U.S. industries such as energy, environmental protection, and disease prevention by 
"applying [his] unique expertise and skills in asset integrity and maintenance engineering, which are 
essential for improving the performance, resilience, and sustainability of the critical infrastructure 
assets and systems." However, the Petitioner has not established these assertions because he has not 
adequately explained or demonstrated how his expertise differs from or improves upon those readily 
available and already in use in the United States. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the use of 
the Petitioner's methodologies will reach beyond benefitting his own company and its clients or will 
have broader implications within the field or on his target market - government and private business 
organizations in different fields and industries. 
2 We note that since the filing of this legal brief: on June 7, 2024, the Petitioner's attorney withdrew her representation. 
2 
Moreover, we note that throughout the appeal, the Petitioner refers to his "past achievements" and 
professional history in advancing his contention that his proposed endeavor is of national importance. 
However, this information is relevant to our analysis under Dhanasar 's second prong, where we focus 
on whether the individual is well positioned to advance their endeavor. Id. at 890. Finally, as to the 
Petitioner's assertion that his endeavor advances U.S. competitiveness because it benefits societal 
welfare and cultural enrichment through advancement of STEM fields, we point out that in Dhanasar, 
we concluded that a STEM teacher may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. education interests, 
but that the evidence must establish the broader impact their teaching would have on the field of STEM 
education. Id. at 893. Similarly, here, the Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that his endeavor will have a broader impact on his field. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 375-76. 
As such, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the 
first Dhanasar prong. 
III. WILLFUL MISREPRESENT A TTON 
While the appeal was pending, we issued the Petitioner a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID), to give 
the Petitioner an opportunity to respond to our adverse findings, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(16)(i). We also advised the Petitioner that ifhe did not overcome the adverse findings, we 
would make a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. The Petitioner responded to the 
NOID and provided more evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner 
willfully misrepresented evidence in two prior petitions, which are material to the adjudication of those 
prior petitions, and which impact this petition, and render him inadmissible under section 
212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
USCIS will deny a visa petition if a petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. In 
general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of a foreign 
national or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Enters. Inc. v. US., 345 F.3d 683, 
694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner 
does not resolve those errors and discrepancies given the opportunity to rebut or explain, then the 
inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the claims stated in the petition are not true. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988) (standing for the proposition that any 
inconsistencies in a petitioner's evidence may lead to reevaluation of the remaining evidence offered 
in support of the visa petition.) 
Misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to multiple consequences in immigration proceedings. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) precedent, a misrepresentation is material when it 
tends to shut off a line of inquiry that is relevant to a foreign national's admissibility and that would 
predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to his or her eligibility for a visa, other documentation, 
or admission to the United States. Matter ofD-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 105, 112 (BIA 2017). A finding of 
willful misrepresentation in a visa petition may be considered in any future proceeding to determine 
that the petitioner is inadmissible to the United States. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 82(a)(6)(C)(i). A material misrepresentation requires that a petitioner willfully make a material 
misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit to which 
one is not entitled. See Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975); and see generally 
3 
8 USCIS Policy Manual J.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. In addition, for a 
misrepresentation to be found willful, it must be determined that the petitioner was fully aware of the 
nature of the information sought and knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately misrepresented 
material facts. Matter of G-G-, 7 I&N Dec. at 164. 
In addition, USCIS "Instructions for Petition for Alien Worker" corresponding to the Petitioner's 
previously filed Form I-140 petition includes in the "Penalties" section at page 9, this warning: 
"If you knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal a material fact or submit a false 
document with your Form 1-140, we will deny your petition and may deny any other 
immigration benefit. In addition, you will face severe penalties provided by law and 
may be subject to criminal prosecution." 
Further, the "Petitioner's or Authorized Signatory's Declaration and Certification" section on page 6 
of the Form I-140 petition states: 
"I recognize the authority of USCIS to conduct audits of this petition using publicly 
available open source information. I also recognize that any supporting evidence 
submitted in support of this petition may be verified by USCIS through any means 
determined appropriate by USCIS .... " 
In addition, the Form 1-140 contains the following certification: "I certify, under penalty of perjury, 
that I have reviewed this petition, I understand all of the information contained in, and submitted with, 
my petition, and all of this information is complete, true and correct." As such, the presence of the 
Petitioner's signature on the certification in the petition creates a strong presumption that he was aware 
of the petition's contents and assented to them. Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496, 499-500 
(BIA 2018). 
Our NOID explained that USCIS's fraud unit investigated evidence, in the form of two emails,3 
provided in support of the Petitioner's 2019 and 2021 petitions, which he asserted were material to his 
eligibility for a national interest waiver because they demonstrated that his endeavor was of national 
importance, and that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor as required under our 
precedent decision Dhanasar. See Dhanasar 26 l&N Dec. at 889-890. Upon investigation, the 
General Counsel could not authenticate the emails and 
further explained that the writer of one of the emails did not assign the Petitioner a case study that was 
mentioned in the email. 
In response to our NOID, the Petitioner explained that the two inauthentic emails that were submitted 
in his prior petitions ( our records show these petitions were filed in 2019 and 2021, and that the 2019 
petition was appealed to the AAO), were created as part of "sample evidence" "to show what kind of 
information and documentation could be presented in response to the request for evidence to prove 
my achievements and support my proposed endeavor." He further claims that at the time, it was 
determined that these emails were not relevant to his case based on all other evidence presented, and 
3 For purposes of brevity, we will not restate the content or other details of these emails in this decision. However, in our 
NOID dated May 7, 2024, we provided the full content and all inf01mation relevant to the fraud investigation and its 
findings so that the Petitioner could adequately understand and address our concerns. 
4 
I 
that no request was made to to provide a "real email with that information." He goes on to explain 
that the "sample evidence" should have been destroyed but instead, his prior immigration attorneys 
submitted the emails "by mistake without my knowledge." He further claims he is "profoundly sorry 
that I didn't notice all the mistakes committed by the immigration law company" and that he had "no 
intention to submit those documents." 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, however they are contrary to the weight of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (AAO 2010) (standing for the proposition that to 
determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the 
evidence.) For example, the Petitioner does not explain why these emails appear to come directly 
from the employees' email inboxes. Id. The Petitioner also does not explain how and why, if 
they were "sample evidence," they were created to look real. Id. Furthermore, he does not provide 
sufficient details to explain if the emails were created with the cooperation of the employees that 
appear as senders in these inauthentic emails and if not, how he was able to draft emails appearing to 
come directly from these individuals. Id. In addition, the Petitioner's NOID response does not address 
the fact that I I General Counsel also explained that a case study mentioned in empemployee 
Iinauthentic email was not assigned to the Petitioner, as suggested in the content of the email 
itself. Moreover, while the Petitioner appears to shift the blame on his prior immigration firm, he does 
not explain why his own personal statements submitted with his appeal and 2021 petition specifically 
reference this case study. Id. 
In his prior attorney's cover letter dated December 21, 2020 (accompanying his 2021 petition), the 
attorney relies on the case study mentioned in I I email to establish his eligibility stating: 
"[b]esides his current daily activities, the institute has set up a plan for [the Petitioner] 
to develop a case of study to showcase the institute' s achievements in the maintenance 
management area. The plan is to have this case study ready to be presented next year 
throughout national conferences in the U.S., targeting industries such as medical 
research, oil and gas, technology, among others. This work is of high value to the 
nation, providing new knowledge and methodology to be applied to the engineering 
maintenance area, and creating opportunities to improve processes in many different 
business organizations." 
This exact language is found in the June 2020 personal statement the Petitioner submitted with his 
2021 petition, and we note that he signed each page of his personal statement, and thus cannot suggest 
he was unaware of its contents. Because the Petitioner's NOID response does not attempt to provide 
an explanation for his continued reference to a case study that General Counsel informed us he 
was not assigned, the weight of the evidence suggests the Petitioner actively participated in the creation 
of these inauthentic emails and that he knowingly relied on the information in the inauthentic emails 
to support claims of eligibility when he filed his appeal and 2021 petition. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 375-76. As such, he is inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. 4 
4 We note that USCIS is not barred from making a finding of willful misrepresentation because the Petitioner withdrew 
his 2019 and 2021 petitions. Indeed, if USCIS were barred from entering a finding of misrepresentation after a petitioner 
5 
To the extent the Petitioner is making an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he has not met the 
threshold requirements found in precedent caselaw, Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. 63 7 (BIA 1988), 
ajf'd, 857 F.2d l O ( l st Cir. 1988). In that case, the Board established a framework for ineffective 
assistance of counsel claims, and set forth the following threshold documentary requirements: 
• A written affidavit of the petitioner attesting to the relevant facts. The affidavit should provide 
a detailed description of the agreement with former counsel (i.e., the specific actions that 
counsel agreed to take), the specific actions taken by former counsel, and any representations 
that former counsel made about his or her actions. 
• Evidence that the petitioner informed former counsel of the allegation of ineffective assistance 
and was given an opportunity to respond. Any response by prior counsel ( or report of former 
counsel's failure or refusal to respond) should be submitted with the claim. 
• If the petitioner asserts that the handling of the case violated former counsel's ethical or legal 
responsibilities, evidence that the petitioner filed a complaint with the appropriate disciplinary 
authorities ( e.g., with a state bar association) or an explanation why the petitioner did not file 
a complaint. 
Id. at 639. 
These documentary requirements are designed to ensure we possess the essential information 
necessary to evaluate ineffective assistance claims and to deter meritless claims. Id. Allowing former 
counsel to present their version of events discourages baseless allegations, and the requirement of a 
complaint to the appropriate disciplinary authorities is intended to eliminate any incentive for counsel 
to collude with their client in disparaging the quality of the representation. We may deny a claim of 
ineffective assistance if any of the Lozada threshold documentary requirements are not met. Castillo­
Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 
Here, the Petitioner's apparent ineffective assistance of counsel claims does not meet any of Lozada 's 
documentary requirements. In his NOID response, the Petitioner accepts responsibility for the 
submitted "sample evidence," and although he places blame on his former counsel for submitting the 
evidence when they should not have, he does not establish the nature of his agreement with them, or 
withdraws the visa petition or appeal, we would be unable to subsequently enforce the law and find an individual 
inadmissible for having "sought to procure" an immigrant visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. See 
section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182. 
5 If the petitioner satisfies these threshold documentary requirements, he must then show that former counsel's assistance 
was so deficient that he was prejudiced by the performance. Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. at 632. See Flores v. Barr, 930 F.3d 
1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2019) (requiring the noncitizen to establish prejudice demonstrating that counsel's deficient 
performance may have affected the outcome by showing "plausible grounds for relief'); Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21, 25 
(1 st Cir. 2001) (requiring the noncitizen to establish ineffective assistance by showing at least a reasonable probability of 
prejudice where, as a result of counsel's actions or inaction, the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the noncitizen 
was prevented from reasonably presenting his case). Harmless error is insufficient. See Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. at 639 
( explaining that individuals are "generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys absent egregious circumstances"); 
Matter ofB-B-, 22 I&N Dec. 309, 311 (BIA 1998) (finding no prima facie case of ineffective assistance where counsel's 
insistence on corroborating evidence discouraged respondents from seeking asylum but was consistent with legal precedent 
and not egregious). 
6 
the actual steps taken to create the "sample evidence," or any details to understand whether counsel 
was even made aware that they submitted, as he claims, inauthentic evidence. To bolster his claim 
that former counsel submitted the inauthentic emails in error, the Petitioner provides copies of emails 
dated March 2021 in which he informs former counsel's ombudsman of his concerns regarding their 
"lack of care and competence" in their representation. However, we note that his complaints do not 
contain any mention of the submission of erroneous evidence or "sample evidence," even though these 
emails are dated March 2021, approximately 11 months after he claims former counsel erroneously 
submitted this evidence. Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has filed a 
complaint with the appropriate disciplinary authorities or contain an explanation for why such a 
complaint has not been filed. Thus, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for us to 
evaluate a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under Lozada. 
Our NOID also informed the Petitioner that he submitted an article of an interview with his 2019 and 
2021 petitions, where he claimed he was interviewed by and the interview was 
published in Brasil Energia in 2013. The article is titled 
I I (the Portuguese title is ________________ We informed him 
that USCIS's fraud unit was unable to authenticate this article. Our NOID provided him with notice 
that Brasil Energy publishes an online index of its publications, and a search of this index did not yield 
any evidence of the purported interview and article. According to Brasil Energia's archive, there were 
two published editions in 2013, one focused on off-shore drilling, the other focused on general 
energy issues, however the Petitioner's article, __________________ is 
not included in the list of articles for either edition. We further noted our search included the Google 
translate English version of the website, and the Portuguese language title I 
I Iin the Portuguese language version of the website. 
USCIS' fraud unit also conducted a search for the term ______ on Brasil Energia's 
website, and although the search produced the title and the first line of text of approximately 608 
articles/posts attributed tol Iand published in Brasil Energia, none were related to the 
Petitioner or the claimed interview. 
In his NOID response, the Petitioner requests us to "consider that it is a reasonable fact that not all 
journals will have all their publications available online, especially when we are talking about an 
interview in an edition that was exclusively printed and was done more than 10 years ago." He also 
submits a letter from a coworker at the time of the purported interview who confirms the interview 
happened. He further requests us to consider that this interview is not material to his petitions, and he 
has not "mentioned anything about this interview in this petition." He also points us to the fact that 
his personal statements and professional plans did not mention this article either due to its lack of 
relevance. 
We have considered the Petitioner's assertions and additional evidence however the weight of the 
evidence supports a determination that the article is not only inauthentic but that he submitted it with 
intent to deceive USCIS into granting his national interest waiver petition, and thus it is material within 
the meaning of 2l 2(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. First, we note that the language of the article itself mirrors 
the language of our national interest waiver framework in Dhanasar. For example, in the interview, 
the Petitioner is asked the following questions: 
7 
• "You were nationally known for the importance of your work in the area of Asset Integrity for 
the Brazilian industry. Could you talk a little about your methodology?" and 
• "Your methodology has been applied by several companies in Brazil and abroad. What do you 
think about your methodology being using to develop not only the Brazilian shipbuilding 
industry, but also the shipbuilding industry in other countries?" 
The use of the words "nationally" "importance" and "methodology" closely mirrors the Petitioner's 
assertions under Dhanasar 's first prong, where he must establish that his endeavor is of national 
importance and where he describes his "unique methodology" in his field. Second, the Petitioner's 
NOID response suggests that the letter provided by al Iemployee I I 
confirming he read the interview in Brasia Energia is authentic and should not be disqualified simply 
because his wife also worked forl I However, in the interview itself, one of the Petitioner's 
responses mentions I I stating "I was personally in charge of important projects to make it 
possible to operate in Brazilian waters dozens of drillships ... to be operated by large companies with 
a long-term contract signed with I I ..." As such, the weight of the evidence suggests the article 
is not authentic and the letter provided bvl of Ito corroborate the article's publication 
is not sufficient to overcome that determination. 
We have considered the Petitioner's assertion that he "immediately, voluntarily, and timely asked to 
retract my appeal and petition," after a phone call at the end of April 2022 with his prior immigration 
counsel, during which he "suspected that wrong documents could have been erroneously sent within 
the evidence." This statement is vague and lacks credibility. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
375-76. The Petitioner does not explain why he suspected they submitted incorrect documents, which 
documents were incorrect, why he did not request a copy of his filing to verify this information, or 
whether he considered filing a complaint or reporting counsel to disciplinary authority, and if he did 
consider it, why he ultimately decided not to file. Id. As such, the Petitioner's response is insufficient, 
vague, and does not reflect the withdraw of his 2019 and 2021 petitions and appeal, was in good faith, 
as he suggests. Id. 
Lastly, our NOID informed the Petitioner that it appeared he sought to procure a U.S. tourist visa in 
May 2022 through willful misrepresentation because he answered "no" to the question on the tourist 
visa application regarding whether he had sought to obtain a visa or other immigration benefit by fraud 
or willful misrepresentation. In response, the Petitioner explains that he was unaware of the contents 
of his prior petitions because he "reached out to other immigration law companies to know if there 
was a way to identify what was sent to USCIS in my previous petitions" and that he learned about the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records request process and asked them to request the petition 
documents through FOIA, but they said it would take a few months to obtain any response. 6 The 
Petitioner does not provide a FOIA receipt notice or other corroboration to show he filed a FOIA 
request. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. He also does not explain why the immigration 
firm that filed his 2019 and 2021 petitions and appeal did not provide him with a copy. Id. We note 
here that his own emails to his former counsel's ombudsman's office dated March 2021 suggest that 
he was given copies of his immigration documents because he claims to have found "errors" and 
informs prior counsel that "there have been numerous instances where I had to correct I I 
6 A Form I-140 petitioner may file a FOIA request with USCIS to obtain copies of documents submitted in support of 
their petition. https://www.uscis.gov/records/request-records-through-the- freedom-of-information-act-or-privacy-act. 
8 
work." Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 591-92. As such, the weight of the evidence supports the 
conclusion that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented a response on his May 2022 tourist visa 
application to obtain a tourist visa and did in fact enter with that visa in June 2022. 7 
The Petitioner's NOID response in this petition suggests that he continues to willfully misrepresent 
information and provide evidence that he knows is not authentic to obtain an immigration benefit. 
Thus, in addition to finding the Petitioner inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for the 
information he provided in his 2019 and 2021 petitions, we are providing him with an additional 
explicit notice that our finding of willful misrepresentation also includes the information and evidence 
contained in his NOTD response for the instant petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision regarding the Petitioner's eligibility under the first 
Dhanasar prong. As such, he has not established he is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 8 
Furthermore, in two prior petitions, the Petitioner willfully misrepresented material evidence and 
information to establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver. In the instant petition, he relies 
on his work experience at to establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver and continues 
to willfully misrepresent material facts to obtain an immigration benefit. As such, the Petitioner is 
inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. This finding may be considered in any future 
proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 We note that had the Petitioner correctly responded to this question on his tourist visa application, he would have been 
rendered inadmissible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. Therefore, his response was "material" within the meaning of the 
Act. See Matter ofD-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 105, 112 (BIA 2017); see also Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 
(BIA 1975) ( standing for the proposition that a material misrepresentation requires that a petitioner wi II fully make a material 
misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled); 
and see generally 8 USCIS Policy Manual 1.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
8 Because the identified reason for dismissal is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
remaining arguments concerning eligibility under the Dhanasar framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) (stating that "courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 
to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative 
issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
9