remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Artisanal Silk Weaving

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 26, 2023 In Re: 27545076 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an artisanal silk weaver , seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition but subsequently revoked 
the approval on notice. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had submitted evidence which 
contained unresolved inconsistencies , thereby undermining the validity of all of the evidence in the 
record . The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
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 .... " Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1155. By regulation this revocation authority is delegated to any U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) officer who is authorized to approve an immigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). 
USCIS must give the petitioner notice of its intent to revoke the prior approval of the petition and the 
opportunity to submit evidence in opposition thereto , before proceeding with written notice of 
revocation (NOR). See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). The Board oflmmigration Appeals (the Board) 
has discussed revocations on notice as follows: 
[A] notice of intention to revoke a visa pettt10n is properly issued for " 
"good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 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. 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Revocation of the Petition 
In his decision to revoke the petition, the Director explained that 
text and photographs from the book 
I !which the Petitioner claimed to have authored appeared in 
an article bearing the same title on the website www.medium.com, and that it contained no publishing 
information or other features typically appearing in books. The Director also determined that the 
Petitioner's explanation, that he was unaware of this plagiarism in a book that he specifically claimed 
to author, was not persuasive. The Director did not, however, analyze or explain how the submission 
of the plagiarized book affected the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification. 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a 
decision must fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful 
opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). While we agree with the Director's analysis 
regarding this piece of evidence and the Petitioner's NOIR response, because the Director's decision 
did not provide the Petitioner with sufficient information that specifically explained the grounds for 
revocation, we will withdraw it and remand the matter for further action and entry of a new decision 
revoking the petition consistent with the following analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents three very brief arguments, without citing to relevant caselaw or 
statutory or regulatory provisions, in support of his claim that the revocation of the approval of his 
petition was not warranted. He asserts that the evidence presented in response to the Director's notice 
of intent to revoke (NOIR) addressed the concerns raised, but does not point to any specific error made 
by the Director in analyzing this evidence. The evidence which was responsive to the NOIR consisted 
only of the Petitioner's statement declaring his ignorance of the plagiarism in the material he 
submitted, and a letter from a company called! !claiming responsibility for the plagiarism. 2 
Although both of these documents purport to explain the plagiarism at the time this material was 
supposedly published, neither addresses the fact that the Petitioner submitted this evidence with his 
petition and claimed to be its author. When the Petitioner signed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers, he certified to the completeness, accuracy and correctness of the petition and all 
materials submitted with it. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
1 Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582. 590 (BIA 1988) {citing Matter ofEstime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987)). Upon the 
proper issuance of a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) for good and sufficient cause, the petitioner bears the bmden of 
proving eligibility the requested immigration benefit. Id. at 589. 
2 We note that other evidence submitted with the NOIR response did not relate to the identified discrepancies. In addition, 
we note that other than the letter, there is no evidence in the record showing thatl lpublished the Petitioner's book, 
or that it was published at all. 
2 
The Petitioner also asserts that the plagiarized book "does not represent material evidence warranting 
the revocation," and that it "does not outweigh the cumulative effect ofrest of the evidence," despite 
the fact that he submitted it as supporting evidence for his petition. On remand, the Director should 
evaluate the evidence pertaining to each of the evidentiary criteria claimed by the Petitioner as an 
individual of exceptional ability. In particular, the Director should consider whether the Petitioner's 
degree in economics relates to his area of exceptional ability as a silk weaver, whether the evidence 
sufficiently establishes that he has ten years of full-time employment experience in the occupation he 
seeks despite the conflicting timeframes shown in the evidence of his education, and whether the 
association in which he claims membership is a professional one that requires its members to hold at 
least a bachelor's degree. If the Director concludes that he does meet at least three of criteria, he 
should then evaluate whether the totality of the evidence, including the multiple discrepancies 
identified in his claimed book, establishes that he is recognized as possessing a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field. 
In addition, the Director should analyze the evidence under the three prongs of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework to determine whether the Petitioner is eligible for, and merits as a matter of discretion, a 
national interest waiver of the EB-2 classification's job offer requirement. In particular, the Director 
should consider whether the Petitioner has adequately described his proposed endeavor, and if so 
whether the evidence establishes that it is of substantial merit and national importance. In doing so, 
the Director should evaluate the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's plan to create, display, 
and sell his silk fabrics and crafts. Also, the Director must evaluate the impact of the discrepancies in 
the Petitioner's evidence, together with the balance of the record, on his positioning to advance his 
proposed endeavor, especially concerning his record of success in related or similar efforts. 
B. Misrepresentation of a Material Fact 
USCIS will deny a visa petition if the pet1t10ner submits evidence which contains false 
information. See section 204(b) of the Act. A petition includes its supporting evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(1 ). Further, misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to multiple consequences in 
immigration proceedings. Any noncitizen who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, 
seeks to procure ( or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission 
into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
A finding of material misrepresentation requires the following elements: the petitioner procured or 
sought to procure a benefit under U.S. immigration laws; they made a false representation; and the 
false representation was willfully made, material to the benefit sought, and made to a U.S. government 
official. Id.; see generally 8 USCIS Policy Manual J.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policyrnanual. 
Under Board precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry 
which is relevant to the [noncitizen's] eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper 
determination that he be excluded." 3 A willful misrepresentation requires that the individual 
knowingly make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
3 Matter ofS- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
3 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled.4 Material misrepresentation requires only a false 
statement that is material and willfully made. The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, 
as distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. 5 
In addition to determining the impact of the identified discrepancies on the Petitioner's eligibility for 
the requested classification and waiver, the Director should also consider whether, based upon the 
evidence already in the record, the Petitioner has made a willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
As discussed above, the Director should consider the Petitioner's NOIR response and his knowledge 
of the plagiarism at the time of filing his petition. Also similar to the above, the Director should then 
consider whether the plagiarized evidence submitted by the Petitioner directly affects his eligibility as 
an individual of exceptional ability and for a national interest waiver, and whether he knowingly and 
intentionally submitted the evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, the Director should issue a new revocation decision in which he considers the 
sufficiency of the evidence already submitted, including the plagiarized book, in establishing the 
Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and for a national interest waiver. In 
addition, the Director should evaluate whether by submitting the plagiarized book as evidence, the 
Petitioner willfully misrepresented a material fact. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4 Sergueeva v. Holder, 324 Fed. Appx. 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 
1975). 
5 See Matter ofHealy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). 
4