dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAY 2 5 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE:_ 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to 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 matter 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 be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~rryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. The AAO will also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation ofa material fact. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the . holding an advanced degree. The 
is a mathematics teacher at 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement a job , and thus of 
a labor certification, is in the national interest ofthe United States. The director found that the petitioner 
qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the 
national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider relevant evidence, and that the petitioner's 
employer has fulfilled the substantive requirements for labor certification. 
Section 203(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 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver ofJob 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 director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
-Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, WIst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptiona1."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter a/New York State Dept. a/Transportation (NYSD01), 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 substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a 
substantially greater degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
sUbjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
The AAO also notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By 
statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification 
requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given 
alien seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on April 21, 2009. In an accompanying cover letter, 
counsel stated: 
The [evidence] clearly shows that [the petitioner] is a person of exceptional ability in 
the field of Teaching Math, a member of the professions and is deserving of 
exemption [from] Labor Certification, insofar as her pioneering work contributes 
-Page 4 
directly, and in a critical way, to the U.S. national interest by her devising Math 
games which is due for distribution in the U.S. 
Also the regular Labor Certification process will be prejudicial to the interest of the 
United States because the current economic and financial crises demands [sic] her 
skills to restart the economy immediately. Also the requirement for the job involves a 
combination of duties and qualifications, thus it will not pass through the regular 
Labor Certification process. Moreover, due to budget cuts, the School may no longer 
afford to maintain [the petitioner] on a fixed salary on a permanent basis. 
The last sentence quoted above indicates that the employer may have difficulty meeting the terms of 
the job offer requirement. The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(g)(2) requires the employer to 
establish its ability to pay the alien's proffered wage. Counsel appears to acknowledge that the 
school cannot meet that requirement. Nevertheless, the statutory standard for the waiver is not the 
employer's inability to meet the job offer requirement. Rather, the statute requires that the waiver 
serve the national interest. Counsel's assertion about the beneficiary's uncertain employment future 
does not establish that her continued work is in the national interest. Rather, the assertion serves 
only to cast doubt on her ability to continue performing that work. 
Counsel did not explain how the petitioner's work as a math teacher will enable her "to restart the 
economy immediately." The petitioner has already been working as a math teacher before filing the 
petition, and the record contains no evidence that her work, to date, has had a measurable effect on 
the national economy. The petitioner has not shown or explained how the waiver, or other 
immigration benefits, would impart a national effect to her work that, so far, has not been evident. 
Counsel wrote a "Summary of Qualifications" for the petitioner, citing five factors as "evidence of 
[the petitioner's] exceptional ability in 
1. Conducted after-school tutoring program at MS 143, which resulted in the 
significant increase of students' performance in citywide exams. 
2. Developed teaching aid entitled, "An EQUANGO Game for Mathematics 
students and teachers." This teaching aid helped students to master skills in 
solving linear equations in one variable from simple equations to complex 
equations involving fractions and decimal in gaming experience. 
3. Developed curriculum material to teach, "Maxima and minima problems" for 
secondary students in a cooperative learning atmosphere. This technique has 
developed student's [sic] positive interdependence using manipulative and 
graphing techniques to introduce concepts in finding the zeroes of a polynomial 
function. 
4. Organized and conducted seminar-workshops on Thinking Skills Development 
for Maximized Cognitive Performance. 
5. Managed Community Immersion Program (off-campus practice teaching). 
Page 5 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Furthermore, even if the petitioner had 
unequivocally established exceptional ability as a math teacher, the AAO has already explained that, 
by statute, exceptional ability in one's field does not guarantee or imply eligibility for the waiver. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner's it possible for her teaching aid to 
reach any Math Student in the United States. In addition ... , she is working on a website to offer 
online tutoring services to students using the _ The record contains no evidence that 
_s nationally distributed, or that any plans are afoot for such distribution, or that the 
petitioner has yet offered online tutoring services. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he 
or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(I). USCIS cannot properly approve the petition at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Furthermore, the or online tutoring are part of her defined 
duties as a teacher at The petitioner's claimed plans to 
eventually branch out into those areas do not impart national scope to her occupation as a high 
school math teacher. 
In an accompanying personal statement entitled "The Need for Quality Teachers in US Classrooms," 
the petitioner cited statistics about problems in the educational system in the United States, including 
"the insidious ... achievement gap between minority and white students." The petitioner stated: "As 
part of the solution to this US global and local problem of closing the academic achievement gap, I 
offer my continued service as a high quality educator to the US government of Department of 
Education [sic], particularly in the City of Philadelphia." 
The petitioner claimed that where she used to work, and 
that her present employer in received Academic Yearly Progress Awards every year 
since she joined its faculty. The petitioner, however, submitted no evidence to support these claims. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158,165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
On July 30, 2009, the director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition, stating that the petitioner 
had not established the impact or influence of her work, such as through other schools' adoption of 
her methods or innovations. 
In response, counsel stated that the petitioner "is the founder of a non-profit organization and has a 
website . . . [called] math~unsel' s emphasis), and that the petitioner had filed a 
patent application for her _ Counsel stated that the principal of 
-Page 6 
proposed to "incorporate [the game] as one of their math activities in the 
classroom," and that the petitioner intended "to promote these games nation-wide." 
The record does not identify the petitioner's claimed "non-profit organization" or contain any 
evidence of its existence or its non-profit status. What appear to be printouts from the petitioner's 
web site state that the site is "under construction," and that "We Are A team of professionals 
founded by The record does not identify any members of the "team of 
professionals" than the petltioner herself, and the petitioner submitted no evidence that 
mathnotebook.org web site was a "live" site, accessible online through the World Wide Web. 
The petitioner's initial submission did not indicate that the web site existed, or that the petitioner had 
filed a patent application. The record does not show when the petitioner launched the web site, and 
there is no date on her provisional patent application. A photocopy of her check, payable to the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office, is dated September 1, 2009, more than a month after the issuance of 
the director's notice, and more than four months after the petition's filing date. A petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter ojIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
As noted previously, the petitioner must be eligible for the benefit sought as of the petition's filing 
date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Actions taken after the filing date, such as the filing of a patent 
application, cannot retroactively show that the petitioner already qualified for the benefit before she 
took those actions. There are some web sites and patented inventions/innovations that benefit the 
United States through activities on a web site, but it does not follow that operating a web site and 
applying for a patent invariably demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility for the waiver. The AAO 
notes that the NYSDOT decision states that "an alien cannot secure a national interest waiver simply 
by demonstrating that he or she holds a patent. Whether the specific innovation serves the national 
interest must be decided on a case by case basis." !d. at 221, n.7. In this instance, the petitioner has 
not even shown that she holds a patent. She has shown only that she applied for one after learning 
that her initial evidence was deficient. 
Counsel claimed that the petitioner "has already received phone calls from parents and students from 
California, Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, Florida [and] Texas who are waiting for the Math game to 
come out." The record contains no evidence to support this claim, and counsel's unsupported 
assertion cannot suffice under . The acknowledgement 
that the game has not yet "come out" underscores the lack of evidence of the game's existing impact. 
The petitioner submits documentation to show that 
represented by the same attorney serving as counsel in the present proceeding, applied for a labor 
certification on the alien's behalf on December 29, 2008. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) 
denied the application for two reasons: the employer's failure to submit a completed and signed 
application, and untimely filing of "the job order." The employer's failure to follow proper 
procedures to apply for labor certification does not in any way imply that it is in the national interest 
to waive the job offer requirement on the alien's behalf. 
-Page 7 
The director denied the petition on November 3, 2009, stating that the petitioner has not shown that 
her existing body of work has had any significant impact or influence. On appeal, counsel states that 
the director failed to consider "the past and present experiences of [the petitioner] in teaching Math 
and in producing Math Games as projections of future benefit to the national interest." 
Counsel, on appeal, fails to explain how the petitioner's "past and present experiences" distinguish 
her from other qualified math teachers. With respect to the "Math Games," the record identifies only 
one math game that the petitioner has created, and there is no evidence that the game is an effective 
teaching tool, much less that the game has had an impact beyond the school where the petitioner 
worked when she created it. The petitioner has not shown that the use of original games is a 
significant new development in pedagogy, rather than a routine part of a teacher's curriculum design. 
Counsel states that the director should have taken into account the petitioner's "efforts to comply 
with the Labor Certifications [sic] process." Counsel asserts: 
The inherent national interest in protecting U.S. workers has been served since [the 
petitioner] has already undergone the Labor Certification process where 
advertisements were made and interviews were conducted. The only reason why it 
was not approved was because of a technicality, that the Petitioner failed to sign the 
Application on time. 
The assertion that the director should have considered the petitioner to be, effectively, the 
beneficiary of a labor certification is without merit. The DOL denied the labor certification 
application. If there were no functional difference between a labor certification and an application 
for a labor certification, then there would be no point to actually filing the application. The DOL did 
not state that it would have approved the labor certification, but for the "technicality" that resulted in 
the denial. Rather, the denial notice indicated that, because the employer failed to follow the correct 
procedure, there would be no determination on the application's merits. Even then, counsel fails to 
explain how the denial of a labor certification application shows that the petitioner's work will 
prospectively serve the national interest. 
The AAO agrees with the director's finding that the petitioner has not shown the impact or influence 
of her existing work. The assertion that works in progress such as her web site and Equango game 
will, one day, significantly improve math education throughout the United States amounts to little 
more than speculation. The alien must have established, in some capacity, the ability to serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of his or her colleagues. USCIS 
does not seek a quantified threshold of experience or education, but rather a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. In all cases the 
petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements which establish the alien's ability to benefit 
the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 219, n.6. The AAO will therefore affirm the director's 
decision to deny the petition. 
Page 8 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest ofthe United States. 
The AAO will also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. When the 
petitioner signed Part 8 of Form 1-140, she certified that the "petition and the evidence submitted 
with it are all true and correct." 
The petitioner signed the Form 1-140 under penalty of perjury and attested that she IS solely 
responsible for submission of evidence with this petition. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) ofthe Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - 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. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which 
"tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 
I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). Because the petitioner has sought an immigration benefit for members 
of the professions holding advanced degrees, information about her advanced degrees is relevant to her 
eligibility. 
As required by the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii), the petitioner submitted Form 
ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, with her petition. Part 11 of that form instructs the 
alien to list "Colleges and Universities Attended," along with "Degrees or Certificates Received." 
The petitioner indicated that she attended "Eastern Visayas State Univ., Phils." where she received a 
"Ph.D." in "Educational Po grams [sic] Mgt." 
In her statement accompanying the initial filing, the petitioner stated: "World Education Services ... 
has credited my Doctor of Philosophy Degree (Ph.D.) in Educational Program Management." The 
petitioner's resume, under "Education," likewise lists a "Ph.D. in Educational Program 
Management." The initial filing, therefore, contains at least three separate claims by the petitioner 
that she holds a Ph.D. degree. 
In the "Summary of Qualifications" that accompanied the initial submission, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] has a Ph.D. in Educational Program Management. ... 
Page 9 
As a High School Math Teacher with a Ph.D. in Educational Program Management is 
an exceptional achievement [sic] . ... Being a Ph.D., in Educational Program 
Management, she will design Math curriculum for Minority students, those who are 
"left behind" in the U.S. School System. 
A transcript from confirms that the petitioner studied for a Ph.D. in 
educational programs management, but the line marked "Title or Degree Conferred" is blank. 
The credential evaluation report from World Education Services stated that the petitioner's academic 
studies are equivalent to a "Bachelor's and master's degree in education from, and one and one-half 
years of graduate study at, a regionally accredited institution." The report indicates that the' 
petitioner "was enrolled in a program leading to an earned doctorate (Ph.D.)," but not that the 
petitioner actually completed the program or received the degree. 
The petitioner's response to the notice of intent to deny included a printout from her own website, in 
which the petitioner added the suffix "PhD" after her name. 
On February 27,2012, the AAO sent the petitioner a notice which read, in part: 
In support of the petition, you submitted the required Form ETA 750 Part B, Statement 
of Qualifications of Alien. On line 11, you indicated that you studied Educational 
Programs Management at Eastern Visayas State University (EVSU) in the Philippines 
from October 1982 to March 2003. Under "Degrees or Certificates Received," you 
stated "Ph.D." You signed this form "under penalty of perjury," thereby attesting that 
the information on the form "is true and correct." On your curriculum vitae, you also 
claimed a "Ph.D. in Educational Program Management." This claim is material to your 
petition, because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulations at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) list academic degrees as supportin~ 
for classification under section 203(b )(2) the Act. Your attorney, ___ 
_ has repeatedly referred to you as asserted that your "Ph.D. 
in Educational Program Management is an exceptional achievement." In this way, your 
attorney has specifically and directly asserted that your claimed doctorate is a favorable 
factor in considering the petition. 
[N]othing in the record shows that you received a Ph.D. 
institution. 
any other 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in 
fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 586. Thus, you cannot 
overcome the above findings simply by offering a written explanation. Unless you 
-Page 10 
are able to provide original, first-hand evidence that you received 
in 2003, the AAO will conclude that you falsely claimed to hold that degree .... 
By filing the instant petition accompanied by the signed Form ETA 750 and 
submitting your curriculum vitae, you appear to have sought to procure a benefit 
provided under the Act through misrepresentation of a material fact. Unless you are 
able to provide substantial evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, all of the 
above findings, the AAO will dismiss your appeal and enter a formal finding of 
misrepresentation into the record. This finding of misrepresentation will be 
considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. You may choose 
to withdraw your appeal, but this will not prevent a finding that you have sought to 
procure immigration benefits through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
In response, the petitioner submits a personal affidavit. In a short cover letter, counsel states: "We 
hope the foregoing meets with your requirements." 
The petitioner, in her affidavit, acknowledges that she did not complete her Ph.D. degree or receive a 
diploma. The petitioner observes that she submitted evidence that demonstrated that her degree was 
not complete, and asserts that these exhibits show that there was no systematic attempt to conceal 
her failure to complete the degree. The petitioner claims that she "never claimed to have graduated 
with a Ph.D.," and that any instance where she claimed to hold a Ph.D. degree (such as when she 
listed that degree under "Degrees or Certificates Received" on Form ETA-750B) was inadvertent 
and unintentional. The petitioner also claims: "In our culture in the Philippines, if one has finished 
the academic requirements for a Doctoral Degree, you are usually called Doctor." The petitioner 
submits no evidence to support this last claim, and under Soffici, the petitioner's unsupported claim 
is insufficient. 
The record contains some documents that make it clear that the petitioner did not complete her 
doctorate, but at no point in this proceeding did the petitioner herself ever specifically state that she 
began, but did not complete, a course of study leading towards a Ph.D. degree. Rather, she claimed 
to hold a Ph.D. on at least four separate occasions, referring at one point to "my Doctor of 
Philosophy Degree (Ph.D.) in Educational Program Management." Given the consistency of these 
statements, the AAO finds that the petitioner sought to convey the impression that she actually held 
a "Doctor of Philosophy Degree." 
The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly and repeatedly misrepresented her academic 
background in an effort to mislead USCIS on an element material to the beneficiary's eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1546. The 
AAO will enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. USCIS may consider this 
finding in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
Additionally, this finding necessarily reflects on numerous other claims that the petitioner has put 
forth without evidentiary support. If USCIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the petition is true, 
. . 
Page 11 
USCIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); see also Anetekhai v. 
IN.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 
(D.D.C.l988); Systronics Corp. v. IN.S., 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001). Moreover, the 
petitioner's submission of false or misleading information brings into question the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Therefore, the AAO will dismiss the 
appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed ~ding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact on 
the part of the petitioner, ____ 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner, knowingly submitted 
documents containing false statements in an effort to mislead USCIS on 
an element material to her eligibility for a benefit sought under the 
immigration laws of the United States.