dismissed EB-3 Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration . 
Services 
MATTER OF S-1-, INC. 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 23,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a retail market and convenience store, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as an assistant 
retail manager. It requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third 
preference immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 
8 U.S. C. § II 53(b)(3)(A)(i). This category allows a U.S. business to sponsor a foreign national with 
at least two years of training or experience for lawful permanent resident status. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center initially approved the petition. The Director of the 
Texas Service Center subsequently revoked approval of the petition after concluding that the record 
did not establish, as required, the Beneficiary's possession of the experience required for the offered 
position and the requested classification. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. We subsequently issued two 
Notices of Intent to Dismiss (NOlO) the appeal, and the Petitioner responded to each. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. We will also enter a finding of willful· 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
I. LAW 
Employment-based immigration generally follows a three-step process. First, an employer must 
obtain an approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).' Section 
212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i). By approving the labor certification, DOL 
certifies that there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available for the 
otfered position and that employing a foreign national in the position will not adversely affect the wages 
and working conditions of domestic workers similarly employed. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(i)(l)-(ll) of the 
Act. Second, the employer may file an immigrant visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USC IS). Section 204 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § II 54. Third, if USC IS approves 
the petition, the foreign national may apply for an immigrant visa abroad or, if eligible, adjustment 
of status in the United States. Section 245 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 . 
• 
1 
The date the labor certification is tiled is called the "priority date." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(d)c 
.
Malf er r?fS-1-. Inc. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, provides that the Secretary of Homeland Securi ty may "for 
good and suni cient cause, revoke the approva l of any petition.'' The reali zation by the director that 
the petition was approved in error may be good and sutTicient cause for revoki ng the approval. 
lvfaller (~,!Ho . 19 l&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
JJ. ANAL YSJS 
A. Beneficiary 's Experience 
A pctll toner must establish a beneficiary's possession of atl th~ experience specified on an 
accompanying labor certitic ation by a petition's priority date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also 
Maller l~[ Wing ·s Tea Hous e. 16 l&N Dec. 158, 159 (Acting Reg' l Comm'r 1 977); Mauer of 
Katigbak. 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' ! Comm' r 197 1). As previousl y noted, a skilled worker must 
also possess at least t\vo years of training or experience. Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. 
In evaluating a beneficiary 's qualit1cations, we must examine the job offer portion of a labor 
cerlit1cation to determine the minimum requirements of an offered position. We may neither ignore 
a term of the labor certification, nor impose additional requireme nts. See K.R.K. Irvine. Inc. v. 
Landon. 699 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1983); Mac(any v. Smilh 696 F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (D.C. Cir. 
1983); Stewart lnji·a-Red Commisscuy ofMa!iS., Inc. v. Coomey. 661 F.2d I, 3 (I st Cir. 198 1 ). 
In support of its pet[tion, the ·Petitioner submitted a certitied Fonn ETA 750, Application for Alien 
Employment Certitication (labor certification), tiled on August 23, 2001 . The labor certitication 
states that the minimum experience required for the offered position of assistan{ retail manager is 
two years of experience in the occupation. The Beneficiary attested on the labor certitication to 
having more than four years of full-time qualifYing experience as a retail manager at 
in India from February 1995 to June 1999. 
A petitioner must support a beneficiary's claimed qualifying experience with a letter from a former 
employer that provides the name, address, and title of the employer, and a description of the 
beneticiary's experience. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). The Petitioner initially provided copies of two 
letters on the stationery of one letter dated March 22, 200 l, and the other 
d
ated January 31, 2013. Both letters were purportedly signed in English by who 
claimed to be the former store proprietor and attested that the Beneficiary worked there as a retail 
manager from February 1995, to June (999. 
On November 20, 20 14, USCIS otlic ials at the U.S. Embassy, in , India visited 
in India and spoke to an individual who identified himself as 
one of the store's ovmers. He told them that he and his brother, run rhe 
busines s and that his father, founded the enterprise. After reviewing copies of the 
2001 and 2013 experience letters, signed a November 20 14 sworn statement 
indicating that the letters are fal$e. He provided specific explanations as to why the information in 
2 
.
Maller ofS-1-. Inc. 
the two letters is untrue and we outlined this derogatory infonnation to the Petitioner in a February 8, 
2016, NOlO. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement from dated March 4, 
2016, in which sought to take responsibility tor information attributed to 
in the November 2014 sworn statement. attested that he had managed 
since 2008 "with the periodic assistance of the three brothers who own the store,'· v.·hom 
he identi lied as . and 
claimed that he had made the statement to USCIS ofll.cials in November 2014, and that they 
appeared to have mistakenly attributed it to stated that he 
had been with the store only since 2008, a period that post-dates the employment period the Beneficiary 
claimed on the labor certification, and as a consequence told the USClS officials that he did not know 
the Beneficiary and did not think the Beneficiary had worked at the store. also asse11ed 
that he incorrectly assumed that could not speak English and could not have written the 
letters attributed to him. claimed that he had never used the pre-printed store letterhead, 
and therefore told the USCIS otlicials that the store does not have it. 
In response to our 2016 NOlO, the Petitioner also submitted written statements dated March 2016, 
purportedly from and 
in which each one claimed that the Beneficiary worked at as a 
manager from February 1995, to June 1999. However, we need not examine the specific claims 
outlined within those lour attestations because, as will be discussed, they are fraudulent and· there tore 
not probative evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifications for the proffered position. 
On August 17, 2017, LSCIS offtc:ials at the U.S. Embassy in 
for a second time and met with 
First the USC!S officials met with 
India traveled to 
and 
and 
at 
place of business. Both men stated that their brother, 
is the proprietor of and confirmed that the Beneficiary 
worked at however, they denied that the Beneficiary ever worked at the 
store in a managerial capacity and for the periods that the Petitioner claims. 
specified that the Beneficiary worked at for only one or 
two years as a helper/cleaner, and that the store never employed the Beneficiary as a manager 
because it is small and has no need for one. also denied having prepared or signed 
the March 2016 affidavit that the Petitioner provided on his behalf. He asserted that 
is not his, that the March 2016 affidavit is Cake, and that someone else must have used 
his voter registration card to prepare it. 
also denied having prepared the March 2016 affidavit that the Petitioner 
provided on his behalf. Specit1<:ally, he stated th~t he did not know anything about the contents of 
the affidavit and that someone misused his letter. After denying any association with the March 
3 
.
Moller ofS-1-. ]II(: 
2016 affidavit, took the USCLS officials to his home to meet with 
who was there recuperating rrom surgery. 
provided the USCIS officials with evidence that he owns 
stated that the Beneficiary worked at his store from approximately 1991 to 1993, and denied 
that he ever provided employment documents to the Beneficiary. stated that he 
does not know the contents of the March 20 16 affidavit that the Petitioner submitted on his behal( 
and confirmed that it is a take. then escorted the USCIS officials to another 
location to meet . his tather. 
reviewed the March 2016 affidavit that the Petitioner provided on his behalf, stated 
that he does not speak or read English, and attested that he has never signed a document in English 
script. He explained that he was never an owner of his son 
owns the business, and ~'whatever is written in the three documents" that the Petitioner 
provided on his behalf is fake. The family members affirmed their oral statements in writing 
on August 17, 2017. 
Accordingly, the information that the Petitioner provided in response to our 2016 NOlO includes 
four new fraudulent statements, none of which establishes that the Beneficiary worked at 
as an assistant retail manager at any time. Moreover, the aclual 
O\V11Cr of provided information about the nature and dates of the 
Beneficiary's actual employment that contradicts and therefore undermines the probative value of 
the statement from Consequently, affidavit is 
not persuasive evidence of the Beneficiary's qualifying employment experience. We advised the 
Petitioner of this additional derogatory information in a second NOlO dated October 19, 2017. 
In response, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary worked as a retail manager at 
in India from february 1995 to June 1999. The Petitioner contends that the 2016 
statements that the Beneficiary provided are similar to the 2017 statements that the USCLS officials 
secured 1 n that they inc! uded evidence of the signatory's identity; however, the Petitioner asks that 
we give more weight to the 2016 statements and find that they are su11icient to establish that the 
Beneficiary has the qualifying experience that he claimed on the labor certification. 
The Petitioner includes a statement from the Beneficiary, who states that he believes his own 
statements and evidence to be true and contends that he does not know why his former employer, 
and family members, and 
advised USClS that the employment verification documents provided by the Beneficiary are fraudulent. 
However, this statement is not suffic1ent to e~tabhsh the reliability and probative value of the 
Beneticiary' s evidence. The anidavits that the U SCIS otlicials obtained in the two overseas 
investigations contain specific, substantial, and material 1nfonnat1on aboul the Beneficiary's overseas 
employment thal contradicts his claims. Moreover, the Beneticiary's former employer and the 
signatories of his employment verification letters have made unequivocal, written refutations of the 
validity of the documents the Beneficiary provided that cast doubt on his claims and the evidence of 
4 
.
Matler.ofS-1-. Inc. 
his prior qualifying experience. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the tmth lies. Maller (?f Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
.I 988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of 
other evi de nee submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. /d. The Beneficiary's 
assenion that his evidence is true is not sufficient to resolve the contradictory information. 
As discussed, the Petitioner requests rhat we rely on the Beneficiary's evidence rather than the 
statements that USCIS officials obtained from and his family members. 
However, the Petitioner has not established that the evidence secured by the USCIS officials is 
deficient. Records made by public officials in the ordinary course of their duties generally are 
deemed to evince "strong indicia of reliability." See Felzcerek v. t.N:S., 75 F.3d I 12, 116 (2d Cir. 
1996). ln this case, the LSCIS officials personally met with and various family 
members, confim1ed and documented their identities, and obtained written, signed statements 
establishing that the employment verification e\tidence that the Beneficiary had provided is false, 
and that the Beneficiary does not have the qualifying work experience that he claimed on the labor 
certification. Absent evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the USCIS officials properly 
discharged their duties in making the contested reports. The Petitioner has not othenvise 
demonstrated the reliability of the Beneficiary's own claims and evidence. Consequently, based on the 
derogatory infonnation obtained during the two overseas investigations and the contradictions between 
that evidence and the Beneficiary's evidence and claims, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary has at least two years of qualifying experience as a retail manager in India, as required on 
the labor certification. 
B. Eligibility for Classification as a Skilled Worker 
The record also does not establish the Beneticiary's eligibility for classification as a skilled worker. 
Section 203(b )(3 )(A)(i) of the Act allows for c1assi fication as a skilled worker if a beneficiary has at 
least two years of training or experience. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that 
employed the Beneficiary tor any period oftimc and, consequently, has no! 
demonstrated that he has two years of training or experience. As such, the record does not 
demonstrate ·his eligibility for the classification requested. 
C. Bona Fide Job Offer 
On the labor certification, the Petitioner indicated that it intends to employ the Beneficiary as an 
assistant retail manager. From the date it filed the petition on October 7, 2002, to the present, the 
Petitioner has· maintained that the Beneficiary has been and \vill be employed at its convenience 
store. hi support of the petition, the Petitioner provided Internal Revenue Service Forms W-2, \Vage 
and Tax Statement, from 2003 to 2015 to show that the Beneficiary has been its full-time employee 
and that it has the ability to pay the proffered \Vage. However, publicly available records are not 
consistent with the Petitioner's claim about the Beneticiary's current employment. 
·s 
.
Matter ofS-1-. Inc. 
The Petitione r's business address on Massach usetts appears to be the 
business location for at least two other active businesses. Specificall y, the Massachusetts 
Corporations Division busine ss entity database shows that the Beneficiary is currently the president, 
treasurer, secretary, and director of two convenience stores, and 
and that he holds or has held various additional corporate positions with other businesses in 
Massachusetts , including: ( t) , a convenienc e store; (2) a 
convenie nce store; (3) a smoke shop~ and (4) a grocer~y store. 
(http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/corpw eb/Co rpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx, last visited on October 4, 2017.) 
With respect to and recent corporate tilings reflect their physica1 
location i s the same store premises on that the Petitioner claims. Because the 
Beneficiary is president of at least two conve nience stores that are listed as being located at the 
Petitioner's place of business, the Petitioner 's own evidence is not suflicient to estab lish that the 
Beneticiary has been and \Viii be its full-time retail manager, or that the Petitioner is the conven ience 
store for which he will be employed, as it has claimed on the labor certitication, the petition, and its 
supporting statements. 
We advised the Petitioner of this contradictory information in our second NOlO. In its response, the 
Petitioner stated that the Forms W-2 it issued to the Beneficiary are irrefutable evidence that it has 
emp1oyed the Beneficiary, and that it is a convenience store that rents mailboxes to other businesses, 
includin g the Beneficiary' s two active businesses referenced in the NOlO. The Petitioner provides a 
copy of a PS Form 1583, C.S. Postal Service Application IDr Delivery of Mail Through Agent, dated 
February 8, 2005 , showing that the Beneficiary requested that the Petitioner be authorized to serve as 
his agent for delivery of mail at the business address on However, rather 
than resolve the issues regarding the Beneficiary's additional businesses, this statement appears to 
confirm that the Beneficiary has at least two active businesses of his own. 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary is only using its address as a mailing add ress for his two 
businesses, and the supporting statement from the Beneficiary reiterates this assertio n. However, the 
Beneficiary's state filings list the Petitioner's address as the physical address for his t'No businesses, 
and neither the Petitioner nor the Beneficiary li.st any other physical address for the Beneficiary 's 
two businesses. The Petitioner and Beneficiary do not discuss the Benefic iary's role and time 
commitmen ts to his two business enterprises. The Petitioner does not include documentation to 
show ho\v much time the Beneficiar y is devoting to his other two businesses, such as~ for example, 
detailed payroll records or payroll reports showing how many hours he worked for the Petitioner 
during a given period of time and how many hours he dedicated to his own businesses during the 
same time. Accordingly, the Petitioner 's response is not sufticient to overcome the derogatory 
information cited in our NOIDs. Without additional evidence showing that the Beneficiary has been 
and will be working for the Petitioner, as the Petitioner has claimed , rather than his ovvn businesses , 
the Petitioner has not established that its offe r of employment to the Beneficiar y for a position as an 
assistant retail manager is bona fide. 
(i 
.
Mauer ofS-1-. Inc. 
D. Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact 
As a separate matter, we will address whether the assertions and evidence submitted with respect to 
the Beneficiary's claimed experience with tn [ndia rises to the level of 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
USCIS will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. 
In general, a lew errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien 
or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer Emerprises Inc. v. US, 345 F.3d 683, 
694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the 
petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an otl'icer provides an opportunity to 
rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead users to conclude that the claims stated in the 
petition are not tme. See Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591. 
In this case, the information from the two overseas investigations described above constitutes 
substantial and probative evidence. which leads us to conclude that the claims that the Beneficiary 
has at least two years of qualitying experience as a retail manager are neither true nor credible. This 
evidence is material to the statutory requirement at section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act, and the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(3)(ii)(A). When given an opportunity to respond to these 
findings, the Petitioner offered no rebuttal or explanation for the inconsistencies and instead asserted 
that the foreign employer's statements that the Beneficiary did not work for it as a retail manager are 
untrue. We conclude that the Petitioner submitted false documentation, including fraudulent 
experience letters and employment documents. The record contains no credible evidence that the 
Beneficiary worked for in India as a retail manager for any period of time. 
Beyond the adjudication of the visa petition, a misrepresentation may lead USC IS to enter a tinding 
that an individual alien sought to procure a visa or other documentation by willful misrepresentation 
of a material fact. This finding of fact may lead USC IS to determine, in a future proceeding, that the 
alien is inadmissible to the United States based oi1 the past misrepresentation. 
Section212(a)(6)(C) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. ~ 1182(a)(6)(C), 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. · 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires that the 
alien willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to \Vhich one is not entitled. Ma!fer of Kai Hing Hui, 15 r&N Dec. 288, 289-90 
(BfA 1975). The term "willfully" means know·ing and intentionally, as distinguished from 
accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter (~f Healy 
and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material , the misrepresentation 
.
J\tfol/er of S-1-. Inc. 
must be one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry w·hich is relevant to the alien~s eligibility, and 
which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." l'vfaller (!( lv'g, 
17 l&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in vtsa 
petition proceedings, he or she must determine: I) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false 
representation to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the 
misrepresentation \Vas willfully made; and, 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Maller 
of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Malter (~[L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961 ); Kai lhng HL1i, 
15 l&N Dec. at 288. 
First as previously discussed, the Petitioner p'rovided USCIS with false documents intended to 
establish that the Beneficiary has at least two years of qualifying experience as a retail manager at 
in India. The two years of experience is required for the classification, and 
also a requirement for the proffered position on the labor certification. A misrepresentation can be 
made to a government official in an oral interview, on the face of a written application or petition, or 
by submitting evidence containing false information. INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 
(April 30, 1991). Here, the submission of employment documents containing false experience 
attestations and certifications to support this immigrant petition constitutes a false representation to a 
government ot1icial. In addition, because the claims regarding the Beneficiary's qualifying !{)reign 
employment are on the signed labor certification that the Petitioner submitted to support the 
immigrant visa petition~ they constitute false representation on the face of a written application or 
petition. 
Second, we find that the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. When given the 
opportunity to address the derogatory information that resulted from the first overseas investigation 
in response to our first NOlO, the Petitioner did not claim to have submitted the evidence 
accidentally or inadvertently. Instead, the Petitioner reaffirmed its claims regarding the 
Beneliciary' s foreign employment and provided new evidence; however, a second overseas 
investigation revealed the additional evidence is also fraudulent. ln response to our second NOlO, 
the Petitioner maintains that all of its evidence is true and that the foreign employer is making false 
st_atements against the Bene fll:iary for unknov.;n reasons. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's participation in this matter, he signed the labor certification 
attesting to the veracity of the claims on the labor certification, and provided additional statements in 
which he t~llsely. asserted that he has more than two years of qualifying experience as a retail 
man<lger for in India. In this way, the Beneficiary directly participated in 
the preparation and submission of documents that exist for no discernible purpose except to convey 
the false impression that he has at least two years of qualifying experience, as required on the labor 
certification and for the requested immigrant classification. Because the foreign emp 1 oyment 
documents that the Petitioner provided on behalf of the Beneficiary are not authentic, we conclude 
that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary provided them specifically for the purpose of supporting the 
petition and, thereby, procuring immigration ben~iits for the Beneficiary. 
8 
.
Alntter ofS-1-. Inc. 
Third, the evidence is material to the Beneftciary's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. K11n~:,rys v. US., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cut otT 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, 17 J&N Dec. at 53 7. The misrepresentations regarding the Beneficiary's foreign work history 
cut off a potential line of inquiry regarding his claimed qualifying experience as a retail manager. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence purporting to resolve derogatory evidence uncovered through one 
overseas investigation; however, a second overseas investigation revealed that the additional 
evidence is also fraudulent. These assertions and evidence are directly material to the Beneficiary's 
eligibility under the statutory requirement that he have at least two years of experience or training for 
the classification. Section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act. Furthermore, if he did not have the claimed 
employment history, then the Beneficiary would not satisfy the experience requirements for the 
proffered position, as described on the labor certificatio'n. 
Based on the information relerenced above, it is reasonable to question whether the Petitioner and 
the Beneficiary willfully misrepresented material facts regarding the Beneticiary's previous 
employment with tn India. We advised the Petitioner in our NOIDs that the 
discrepancies, if unresolved, could lead us to conclude that the evidence concerning the 
Bcndiciary's experience, which is material to his eligibility under section 203(b)(3)(A)(i) ofthe Act, 
is not credible. In light of the contradictory evidence and information we described above, we 
conclude that the Petitioner's and the Beneficiary's misrepresentat[ons were material to the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 
In response to our second NOlO, the Petitioner states that even if we do not find that "the evidence 
of the Beneficiary's exper ience [is] compelling in view of his employer's .contradictory statements, 
there is no clear basis ... to find that the Beneficiary is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of 
the Act lor willfully misrepresenting a material fact" The Petitioner has not established that the 
statements that the Beneficiary's former employer provided in two separate overseas .investigations 
are contradictory. Rather, and his family members have consistently asserted to 
USClS officials that the Beneficiary's evidence of his employment at is 
fake. Consequently, it is the Beneficiary's own evidence that contradicts the Petitioner's statements. 
Regardless, we need not make a finding of inadmissibility against the Beneficiary within this 
petition proceeding , as the visa petition procedure is not the forum lor determining substantive 
questions of admissibility under the immigration laws. Matter ofO, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). 
instead, \Vhether or not the Beneficiary is inadmissible based on his submission of fraudulent 
documents is a determination that may be made within th~ context of any other petition or 
application for which he must establish his admissibility. · 
It remains, however, that by filing the instant petition and falsely claiming that the Beneficiary was 
employed as a retail1:1anager at in India, the Petitioner has sought to procure 
9 
Matter ofS-1-. Inc. 
a benefit provided under the Act through the willful misrepresentation of material facts. By signing 
the labor certification and making additional false claims in his supporting statements, the 
Beneficiary himself sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through the willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. Accordingly, we will enter a finding that the Petitioner and the 
Beneficiary made willful misrepresentations of material fact. This finding of willful material 
misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where the Beneficiary's admissibility 
IS an ISSUe. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has at least two years of qualif)'ing experience 
as a retail manager. Accordingly, the Beneficiary does not meet the minimum experience 
requirement of the labor certification, and does not qualify for classification as a skilled worker. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that its offer of employment to the Beneficiary is bona 
fide. We also find that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary have sought to procure immigration 
benefits on behalf of the Beneficiary through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .. 
Cite as Matter o(S-1-. Inc., JD# 123421 (AAO Mar. 23, 2018) 
10