dismissed H-1B Case: Business And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4810347 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 22, 2020 
The Petitioner, an educational services company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a 
"business and marketing analyst" under the H- lB nonimrnigrant classification for specialty 
occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 10l(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 110l(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition. The matter 
is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
On the Forms G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, I-290B, 
Notice of A eal or Motion, and 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, the Petitioner authorized 
1....-_.---.._...,ChiefExecutive Officer, to sign on its behalf. In reviewing the appeal, we observed 
that.__ __ _. signatures, which appeared on numerous documents, differed visibly from one another. 
We therefore issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Request for Evidence (NOID/RFE) and 
requested an explanation. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a sworn statement fro~ a copy of a document titled 
"Signing Authority," and a copy of an electronic message fromL___Jto Counsel. First, in the sworn 
statement! pttests that, while he personally signed the Form I-290B, he authorized Counsel to 
personally sign his name, by their hand, on the Forms 1-129 and ETA 9035/9035E submitted as, and 
in support of, the underlying petition. Second, I I further attests that he expressly granted 
Counsel authorization to sign his name on the Petitioner 's documents via the "Signing Authority" 
document, which was executed in March 2018, and in an electronic message advising Counsel he was 
out of town and authorizing Counsel to sign on his behalf. As suchJ !confirms that he, as a 
representative of the Petitioner, did not personally sign the underlying Form 1-129 petition. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued policy guidance regarding required 
signatures on petitions. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0134.1, Signatures on Paper 
Applications, Petitions, Requests, and Other Documents Filed with US. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (signature memo) (Feb. 15, 2018), https://www .uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS /Laws/ 
Memoranda/2018/2018-02-16-PM-602-0134.1-Signatures-on-Paper-Applications-Petitions­
Requests-and-Other-Documents.pdf. The signature memo became effective March 17, 2018, and it 
rescinded previous USCIS policy allowing for the signing of documents pursuant to Powers of 
Attorney (POA). While the Petitioner did not indicate that it executed a POA with Counsel, it 
submitted a copy of a document titled "Signing Authority," to which it extends similar privileges. The 
signature memo states, in pertinent part, the following: 
The 2016 interim PM addressed general questions relating to the signature requirement 
contained in 8 CFR § 103.2(a)(2). One issue addressed by the interim PM involved 
allowing the signing of documents pursuant to a Power of Attorney (POA) under 
general agency principles. This final PM removes those provisions. The practice of 
accepting POA signatures resulted in inconsistent treatment among USCIS officers and 
offices of petitions that were accompanied by a POA. In addition, the Department of 
Justice has indicated to USCIS that POAs create an additional evidentiary burden, 
making it more difficult to litigate or prosecute immigration fraud when the filing is 
signed and filed by a POA. Upon the effective date of this PM, USCIS will no longer 
accept documents signed under general agency principles pursuant to a POA. As 
provided in section V. D of this PM, if a POA is determined to be acceptable for a 
certain form, its form instructions will be revised to provide the requirements for a 
POA. As described below, the policy on POAs for individuals and the remaining 
signature policies for entities remain unchanged. 
Immigration law is not the only context within which this logic is followed. For example, in 2015 a 
federal bankruptcy court stated the following: 
When documents requiring the debtor's original signature are not signed by the debtor, 
the evidentiary basis for the information in those documents no longer exists. The 
principal's act of giving the attorney-in-fact the authority to file documents containing 
facts within the principal's personal knowledge on her behalf does not transfer the 
principal's knowledge of those facts to the attorney-in-fact. See In re Harrison, 158 
B.R. 246, 248 (Bankr. M.D.Fla. 1993) ("It takes no elaborate discussion to point out 
the obvious that no one can grant authority to verify under oath the truthfulness of 
statements contained in the documents and to verify facts that they are true when the 
veracity of facts are unique and only within the ken of the declarant. "). Thus, even if a 
power of attorney gives the attorney-in-fact the authority to file documents related to 
the debtor's bankruptcy proceeding on the debtor's behalf, the attorney-in-fact cannot 
present these documents to the Court in accordance with Rule 9011 unless there is a 
separate evidentia1y basis for their accuracy. 
In re Veluz, No. 14-20101, 2015 WL 161002, at *4 (Bankr. D.New Jersey Jan. 12, 2015). See also In 
re Husain, 533 B.R. 658 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2015) ("attorney violated American Bar Association Model 
Rule prohibiting an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to tribunal by 
filing bankruptcy petitions and other bankruptcy documents which purported to bear his clients' 
contemporaneous wet-ink signatures, but which were in fact signed by attorney or someone in his 
office on clients' behalf: even assuming that attorney acted with clients' consent"). 
Here, the Petitioner filed the Form I-129 44 days after the signature memo's effective date. As such, 
the Petitioner's reliance on a "Signing Authority" document allowing Counsel to sign~I --~I name 
on the Petitioner's behalf was not in accordance with USCIS policy. 
2 
Without a Form 1-129 demonstrated to have been personally signed by an authorized individual on 
behalf of the petitioning entity, we cannot conclude that Petitioner has properly filed the underlying 
petition. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. 1 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 The signature memo states that "ifUSCIS accepts a request for adjudication and later determines that it has a deficient 
signature, USCIS will deny the request." 
3