dismissed L-1A Case: Project Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-USA LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 6, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a provider of project management consulting services in the hospitality industry, seeks 
to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as its vice president under the L-1 A nonimmigrant 
classification for intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(L), 8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(15)(L). The L-1A classification' allows a corporation or 
other legal entity (including its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the 
United States to work temporarily in an executive or managerial capacity. 
The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did' not establish that: (1) the Beneficiary's position in the United States would be in a 
managerial or executive capacity, and (2) its foreign parent entity continues to do business. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In support of its appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
evidence and asserts that the Director's findings were incorrect. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge 
capacity, for one continuous year within three years preceding the Beneficiary's application for 
admission into the United States.1 In addition, the Beneficiary must seek to enter the United States 
temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer or a subsidiary or affiliate 
thereof in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge capacity? 
1 Section 10l(a)(15)(L) ofthe Act. 
2 !d. 
Matter of R-USA LLC 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3) states that an individual petition filed on Form 1-129, 
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, shall be accompanied by: 
(i) Evidence that the petitioner and the organization which employed or will 
employ the alien are qualifying organizations as defined in paragraph 
(l)(l)(ii)(G) of this section. 
(ii) Evidence that the alien will be employed in an executive, managerial, or 
specialized knowledge capacity, including a detailed description of the 
services to be performed. 
(iii) Evidence that the alien has at least one continuous year of full-time 
employment abroad with a qualifying organization within the three years 
preceding the filing of the petition. 
(iv) Evidence that the alien's prior year of employment abroad was in a position 
that was managerial, executive or involved specialized knowledge and that the 
alien's prior education, training, and employment qualifies him/her to perform 
the intended services in the United States; however, the work in the United 
States need not be the same work which the alien performed abroad. ) 
II. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The first issue to be addressed in this decision is the Beneficiary's propostd employment. The 
Director denied the petition based on a finding that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner does not claim 
that the Beneficiary will be employed in a managerial capacity. Therefore, we restrict our analysis 
to whether the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
Section 101(a)(44)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(44)(B), defines the term "executive capacity" 
as "an assignment within an organization in which t~e employee primarily": 
(i) directs the management of the organization or a major component or function 
of the organization; 
(ii) establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function:; 
(iii) exercises wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and 
(iv) receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level executives, 
the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. 
2 
Matter of R-USA LLC / 
If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an individual is acting in a managerial. 
or executive capacity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must take into account 
the reasonable needs of the organization, in light of the overall purpose and stage of development of 
the organization.3 
A. Evidence of Record 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129 on January 8, 2015. On the Form I-129, the Petitioner indicated 
that it currently has three employees and a gross annual income of $310,219. 
The Petitioner's initial supporting evidence included a statement in which the Petitioner provided the 
following information about the Beneficiary's proposed position: 
[The] Beneficiary ... manages [the] US operations as head of [the] company's entire 
operations in [the] U[.]S[.]A[.] supervising 4 General Managers and their extended 
team comprising of senior managers and professionals. [The] Beneficiary has 
complete control to allocate budgets; hire and fire any employee; render decision[­
]making on the board of directors; direct operations as he may deem fit; recommend 
to the Board strategic directions for the Corporation's business, and when approvep 
by the Board, implement the corresponding strategic, business and operational plans; 
develop and implement operational policies to guide the Corporation; develop and 
recommend top-level organizational structure and staffing to the Board and direct the 
implementation of the Board's decisions in this regard; discuss regularly the 
operations and its activities with the President of [the] company as required[,] etc. 
"' 
[The Beneficiary] will continue to supervise US Operations function, setting up and 
reviewing monitor [sic] contracts, overseeing the entire US business operation 
including multi-state payroll and corporate income tax filings and payments, interface 
with external clients, manage consultants, supervise invoice, billing, accounts 
receivables, identify opportunities for joint ventures, recruit, develop and manage 
human resources, maintain morale and motivate employees, design, develop and 
implement systems in the organization. His focus will continue to be as the Vice 
President function. He will continue to supervise and head a team of managers and 
would continue to report to President, US Operations. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart showing the Beneficiary as second in command, 
subordinate only to the company's president. Although the chart depicts the Beneficiary as 
overseeing four managerial positions - a general manager of accounting, finance, and 
-/ 
administration; a general manager of sales and marketing; a general manager of project 
development; and a project manager- the positions for general manager of project development and 
general manager of sales and marketing are both vacant. The chart also shows that an unspecified 
3 See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of the Act. 
3 
---------- --------- ---- -------------------------
Matter of R-USA LLC 
number of sales staff, accounting and finance staff, and an administration staff are "to be hired" as 
well as an accounting and finance manager and an administration manager, both of whom the chart 
shows as subordinate to the general manager of accounting, finance, and administration. Finally, the 
chart shows that the project manager as well as his subordinate staff of two project coordinators 
followed by two site supervisors, will perform services on a contractual consultancy basis. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted copies of IRS Forms 941, Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax 
Returns, for 2013 and 2014. These returns show varying numbers of employee, ranging from 13 
employees during the second quarter of 2013 to three employees during the third quarter of 2014. 
After reviewing the Petitioner's supporting evidence, the Director determined that the record lacked 
sufficient evidence to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility and issued a request for evidence (RFE). 
The Director observed that the Petitioner did not submit evidence to corroborate its claimed use of 
contractors and further noted that the Petitioner did not provide position descriptions for its three 
current employees. The Director also instructed the Petitioner to submit, in part, the following 
additional evidence: (1) a detailed job description listing the Beneficiary's proposed job duties and 
the percentage of time he would allocate to each duty; (2) an organizational chart accompanied by a 
summary of job duties, educational levels, and salaries of the employees identified in the submitted 
organizational ~hart; and (3) evidence of employee salaries, including the Petitioner's payroll 
summary and IRS Forms W-2, W-3, and 1099-MISC. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a statement containing the following percentage 
breakdown of the Beneficiary's job duties: 
• 25% - Establish a broad authority'in decision[- ]making process of the company. 
• 25% - Complete supervision and management over departmental managers. 
• 10%- Development of Project Objectives and Plans. 
• 15% - Participate in development, interpretation, evaluation and recommendation 
of goals, policies and operation of the company. 
• 10% - Assigning tasks, delegating authority and motivating team managers. 
• 15% - Management overall to ensure work is completed on time and· within 
budget. 
The Petitioner further added the following information about the Beneficiary's role within its 
organization: 
Our company has a somewhat of a centralized authority management. Almost every 
important decision related to our management operations, projects, plans and controls 
are made on [a] daily basis by [the Beneficiary]. He has delegated the authority of 
Hire and Fire of employees to departmental manager [sic]. Only in special 
circumstances such as hiring a functional/departmental manager, he shall oversee this 
function. 
4 
Matter of R-USA LLC 
He has full authority and decision making[ .:]power to negotiate & execute the 
contracts and agreements on behalf of the company. Contracts and agreements are 
not limited to new business developments, new client agreements, renting business 
locations, new ventures, vendors & suppliers, getting professional help and more. · 
[The Beneficiary] is also required to create a set of procedures for the departmental 
managers to perform their duties. Such procedures are following company goals and 
policies. He's also authorized to participate to make change in [the] company's 
operation goals and policies. To such effect he has executed semi-annual conference 
between [the] President and General Partners to discuss and reemploy company goals 
and policies. · 
All the departmental managers shall report to him and are tasked by him for all 
services and operations. He will exercise his authority over the departmental 
managers, by assigning tasks specific to the management projects and create [sic] an 
obligation to accept the task and at his discretion delegating required authority to 
perform such services, and evaluating the performance of functional managers also 
provide guidance & support as and when needed. All departmental tasks are 
performed by departmental managers on their own authority & establish set of 
procedures, only special tasks which require planning and organizing to meet explicit 
clients objectives are overseen & developed by [the Beneficiary]. 
If there are disputes, issues or conflicts between departments to perform specific tasks 
or gather resources or if the morale is low in the company, he's to clear all disputes 
and motivate the team managers to resolve them. Such issues between the 
supervisors and lower management are solved by departmental managers and set of 
procedures created by [the Beneficiary]. -
[The Beneficiary] is also authorized to create budgets for [the] company and its 
products & services and ensure that the services performed are within budgets and 
clients are satisfied. 
The Petitioner also resubmitted IRS Forms 941 for 2013 and 2014 and provided IRS Forms 941 for 
· the first two quarters of 2015, accompanied by adjusted IRS Forms 941 for the 2013 second and 
third quarters addressing the Director's earlier concerns pertaining to the Petitioner's staffing. The 
Petitioner did not provide the requested quarterly wage reports for the first quarter of2015, nor other 
evidence such as payroll records containing the names, salaries, and number of weeks worked for all 
employees at the time of filing. Failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition.4 
4 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-USA LLC 
The Director denied the petiti<;m concluding, in part, that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary will be employed in the United States in a managerial or executive capacity. 
In denying 
the petition, the Director found that the Beneficiary's listed job duties are not consistent with the 
nature, scope, and organizational structure ofthe petitioning entity and that the Petitioner's size and 
scope would not support the Beneficiary in an executive position. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief asserting that the Beneficiary meets the criteria of the 
statutory definition of executive capacity in that he will direct the management of the organization 
and establish the organization's goals and policies as the "top executive." The Petitioner contends 
that the Beneficiary will oversee a total of 24 employees, including 18 employees of the foreign 
entity, three employees of the U.S. entity, and three contractors retained under a contractual 
agreement with The Petitioner claims 
that the Beneficiary will 
supervise the following four "senior managers": (1) one manager of accounting, finance, and 
administration; (2) two general managers of project development; and (3) one general manager of 
sales and marketing. 
B. Analysis 
Upon review of the petition and the evidence of record, including materials submitted in support of 
the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed 
in an executive capacity in the United States. 
When examining the executive capacity of the Beneficiary, we will look first to the Petitioner's 
description of the job duties.5 The Petitioner's description of the jpb duties must clearly describe the 
duties to be performed by the Beneficiary and indicate whether such duties are in an executive 
capacity.6 
The definition of executive capacity has two parts. First, the Petitioner must show that the 
Beneficiary will perform certain high-level responsibilities. 7 Second, the Petitioner must prove that 
the Beneficiary will be primarily engaged in executive duties, as opposed to ordinary operational 
activities alongside the Petitioner's other employees.8 
In the matter at hand, the Petitioner offered a deficient job description that does not establish that the 
Beneficiary would primarily perform tasks within an ~xecutive capacity. Namely, the job 
description is overly vague and thus does not convey a meaningful understanding of the actual tasks 
the Beneficiary would perform. Although the Director issued an RFE in which she questioned the 
Petitioner's ability to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity with a staff of only three 
employees and instruCted the Petitioner to supplement the record with a job description listing the 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). 
61d. 
7 Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). 
8 See Family Inc. v. USC!S, 469 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 2006); Champion World, Inc. v. INS, 940 F.2d 1533. 
6 \ 
Matter of R-USA LLC 
Beneficiary's typical executive job duties, the Petitioner's response statement broadly focused on the 
Beneficiary's discretionary authority over subordinates and business matters, but did not specify the 
Beneficiary's daily tasks or explain how the limited U.S. staff would relieve the Beneficiary from 
having to allocate his time primarily to nonexecutive functions. 
The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary would allocate 25% of his time to "[e]stablish a broad 
authority in decision making process of the company," 10% of his time to the "[d]evelopment of 
Project Objectives and Plans," and 15% of his time to "[p ]articipate in development, interpretation, 
evaluation and recommendation of goals, policies and operation of the company." These broad 
duties do not provide sufficient detail of the actual tasks performed by the Beneficiary such that we 
could conclude that they would be executive in nature. Likewise, the Petitioner's expanded 
description of the proposed job offered little insight into what the Beneficiary would actually do. 
For example, the Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary would be "required to create a set of 
procedures for the departmental managers to perform their duties," but it did not specify any such 
procedures or state what percentage of the Beneficiary's time would be allocated to this job duty. 
Similarly, while the Petitioner broadly stated that the Beneficiary would "exercise his authority over 
all departmental managers, by assigning tasks specific to the management projects," the Petitioner 
did not clarify how various projects affect the types of tasks he would assign to his subordinates or 
specify the percentage of time the B'eneficiary would allocate to this task. 
Furthermore, in light of the Petitioner's repeated claims that the Beneficiary will allocate 35% of his 
time to supervising and motivating departmental managers, it is critical to address the numerous 
vacant positions within the U.S. organization as shown in the Petitioner's organizational chart. As 
previously noted, the Petitioner's original organizational chart, which presumably depicts the 
Petitioner's staffing at the time of filing, shows that there were no employees in the sales ~nd 
marketing department and the Petitioner had not yet hired a general manager of project development 
or a support staff for the general manager of accounting, finance, and administration to manage. 
Given these staffing vacancies, the Beneficiary's only managerial subordinate staff consisted of a 
project manager, whom the Petitioner indicated would be retained on a contractual basis, and a 
general manager of accounting, finance, and administration. In light of the latter position's lack of 
any support staff, whose positions were included but are shown in the organizational chart as being 
vacant, the title of "general manager" was in name only, as the individual who occupied the general 
manager position had no staff to manage or supervise. We further note that the organizational 
chart's depiction of only one project development general manager is inconsistent with the 
Petitioner's most recent claim on appeal, where the Petitioner expressly indicated that the 
Beneficiary would oversee two general managers of project development. The Petitioner has not 
resolved the latter inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies.9 
The evidence of record does not indicate that the broad statements in the Beneficiary's job 
description are an accurate reflection of the Petitioner's organizational hierarchy and its stage of 
9 See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Matter of R-USA LLC 
j 
development at the time of filing." In other words, it .is unreasonable to claim that the Beneficiary 
would allocate more than one third of his time to overseeing a managerial staff that did not yet exist 
when the petition was filed. The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition and must continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 10 A 
visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. 11 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not explain or clarify how its staffing vacancies, particularly in the 
sales and marketing department, which was devoid of any staff, will affect the Beneficiary and the 
job duties he would have to perform in order to compensate for the Petitioner's diminished support 
staff. Having neglected to explain who will perform its sales duties in the absence of a sales staff, 
the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary does not need to perform those non-qualifying 
duties himself. While no beneficiary is required to allocate 100% of his time to managerial- or 
executive-level tasks, the petitioner in each instance must establish that the non-qualifying tasks a 
beneficiary would perform are only incidental to the proposed position. An employee who 
"primarily" performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not 
considered to be "primarily" employed in a managerial or executive capacity.12 
The statutory definition of the term "executive capacity" focuses on a person's elevated position 
within a complex organizational hierarchy, including major components or functions of the 
organization, and that person's authority to direct the organization. 13 Under the statute, a beneficiary 
must have the ability to "direct the management" and "establish the goals and policies" of that 
()rganization. Inherent to the definition, the organization must have a subordinate level of 
managerial employees for a beneficiary to direct and a beneficiary must primarily focus on the broad 
goals and policies of the organization rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. An 
individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply because they have an executive 
title or because they "direct" the enterprise as an owner or sole managerial employee. A beneficiary 
must also exercise "wide latitude in discretionary decision making" and receive only "general 
supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the 
. . ,14 
orgamzat10n. 
Although we do not dispute that the Beneficiary would assume a top position within the Petitioner's 
organization and exercise discretionary authority over staff and business matters, we cannot 
overlook the overall absence of a managerial staff for the Beneficiary to direct and the overall lack 
of administrative and sales personnel, which indicate that the Petitioner lacked the organizational 
complexity necessary to support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. While the RFE instructed 
10 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
11 See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg') Comm'r 1978). 
12 
See sections IOI(a)(44)(A) and (B) of the Act (requiring that one "primarily" perform the enumerated managerial or 
executive duties); see also Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 604 (Comm. 1988). 
13 Section 10l(a)(44)(B) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(44)(B). 
14 !d. 
8 
----------- -----
Matter of R-USA LLC 
the Petitioner to provide a quarterly wage report for the first quarter of 2015 listing the names, 
employee salaries, and wages paid to employees, the Petitioner did not provide this document, 
thereby limiting our review of the Petitioner's U.S. staffing to a quarterly tax return, which indicates 
that the Petitioner hag, at most, three employees, including the Beneficiary, at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claimed for the first time that 18 employees of the foreign entity actually 
comprise the Petitioner's "[t]eam of managers and associates." However, the Petitioner did not 
explain how the foreign entity's employees would supplement the U.S. entity's organizational 
hierarchy and what respective roles they would assume with respect to the Beneficiary in terms of 
relieving the Beneficiary from having to allocate his time primarily to the performance of 
administrative and operational tasks. While the Petitioner's RFE response includes the names, job 
titles, and job descriptions of the,foreign management staff, there is no indication in any of their job 
descriptions that the foreign employees would assist the Petitioner, thereby helping to relieve the 
Beneficiary from having to primarily perform nonexecutive job duties. Merely claiming that the 
foreign entity's employees perform tasks for the U.S. entity is insufficient without providing a 
comprehensive understanding of the organizational complexity and the roles of the Beneficiary's 
claimed support staff. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 15 
Moreover, we note that the Petitioner's original statements with regard to its organizational 
hierarchy are inconsistent with evidence that the Petitioner subsequently provided on appeal and in 
response to the RFE. Namely, the Petitioner did not originally claim that the foreign entity's staff 
would be instrumental in supporting the Beneficiary in his role as the Petitioner's vice president. 
Rather, the Petitioner focused on its U.S.-based staff in its original supporting statement, where it 
claimed that the Beneficiary would supervise four general managers, whom the Petitioner did not 
identify by name. The organizational chart that the Petitioner subsequently submitted in response to 
the RFE depicts eight, rather than four, managerial positions -three in the United States and five 
abroad- as the Beneficiary's direct subordinates. We note, however, that a petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. 16 Furthermore, if US CIS finds reason to believe that an assertion stated in the petition 
is not true, USCIS may reject that assertion. 17 
In sum, we find that in light of the various deficiencies and inconsistencies discussed above, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary will be employed in an executive capacity. 
15 Matter ofSoffici, 22 i&N Dec, 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (quoting Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 i&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
16 Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998). 
17 
See, e.g., Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); Anetekhai v. INS, 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Lu­
Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001). 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-USA LLC 
III. FOREIGN COMPANY DOING BUSINESS 
Next, we will address the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to 
establish that the foreign entity continues to do business. 
After reviewing the additional evidence that the Petitioner submits on appeal, we find that the 
Petitioner has overcome the Director's finding regarding the issue of whether the foreign entity 
continues to do business. Namely, we find that the various tax and business documents are 
sufficient to establish that the foreign entity continues to provide goods and/or services on a regular, 
systematic and continuous basis pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(1)(1 )(ii)(H). Therefore, we hereby 
withdraw the·Director's adverse finding regarding this issue. 
IV. WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT 
Beyond the Director's decision, we will also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact, concerning the Beneficiary's alleged employment abroad in a managerial or executive 
capacity in the three years preceding his entry as a nonimmigrant. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the 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. 
A. Evidence ofRecord 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary was employed abroad by 51% 
owner of the Petitioner, for at least one year preceding the Beneficiary's entry into the United States 
in F-1 status on December 29, 2007. Specifically, president of the Petitioner, stated 
in a letter: "From June 1, 2005, to December 28, 2007, [the Beneficiary] was employed with 
and that "[w]e had transferred [the Beneficiary] to USA in December 2009 on a 
temporary basis." 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a letter, dated December 1, 2009, from 
partner at stated that the Beneficiary "was employed at 
as Vice President from lstJune 2005 to 28th December 2007." 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a diploma from in India, showing 
that the Beneficiary earned "the Degree of Master of E-Business" on January 13, 2008. 
Accompanying transcripts show that he took seven or eight courses per semester during his first 
three semesters of graduate study from late 2005 to early 2007, and devoted his fourth semester of 
graduate study in mid'-2007 to preparing and presenting a final project. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-USA LLC 
The Petitioner submitted copies of letters from teachers and administrators at 18 
For example, principal of s~ated that the Beneficiary "is known to me 
f~r the last 5 years (2002-2007) as a student of Bachelor of Commerce & Master of E-Business." 
Upon reviewing the record on appeal, we uncovered derogatory information, which if unrebutted, 
would support a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Prior to his entry into the 
United States, the Beneficiary applied for an F-1 nonimmigrant (student) visa at the U.S. Consulate 
in on 
October 26, 2007. In an effort to verify the Petitioner's evidence, we obtained copies 
of the Beneficiary's application materials. 19 On Form DS-156, the primary visa application form, 
the Beneficiary stated his "Present Occupation" as "Student Completed" and listed his 2002-2007 
studies at The Beneficiary did not identify or claim any current 
employment. 
Asked to identify his "Last Two Employers" on Form DS-157, the Beneficiary listed the following: \. 
Management Trainee at 
Dealer at 
June 1, 2006-July 3J , 2006 
February 13, 2007-July 31 , 2007 
On Form DS-158, the Beneficiary listed the same two employers under "Work Experience -
Previous." The section marked "Work ~ Experience- Present" is 'blank. The Beneficiary signed the 
application forms, certifying that the information they contained was "true and correct to the best of 
[his] knowledge and belief." 
In a combination Noti~e of Intent to Dismiss (NOlO) and RFE, we advised the Petitioner that the 
Beneficiary's visa application documents did not show employment with 
even though tlie Beneficiary supposedly worked for that company at the time he completed the 
forms. We found that the1 Beneficiary's employment claims contradict one another, as the 
Beneficiary did not claim employment with until he sought immigration 
benefits for which the Beneficiary's employment with was a prerequisite. We 
also questioned the Beneficiary's residence during the time of his claimed studies and employment . 
In response, the Petitioner submits copies of previously submitted documents and an affidavit from 
the Beneficiary attesting to his employment history abroad. Some of these materials address and 
resolve the questions regarding the Beneficiary 's residence. Other submitted documents concern the 
Beneficiary's studies and employment. 
18 The college 's full name is 
The college is part of 
1
" Form DS-156 , Nonimmigrant Visa Application ; Form DS-157, Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application ; and 
Form DS-158, Contact Information and Work History for Nonimmigrant Visa Applicant 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-USA LLC 
B. Analysis 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner willfully submitted false documents and 
misrepresented facts that are material to issues concerning the Petitioner's and the Beneficiary ' s 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought in this proceeding. 
The information in the record prior to the denial was not sufficient to support a finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. However, the additional information found in the Beneficiary 's 
nonimmigrant visa application actively contradicts the Petitioner's claims about the Beneficiary' s 
employment in the years leading up to his to his entry into the United States in 2007. 
In a 
new affidavit submitted on appeal, the Beneficiary states that he worked full time for 
and that his positions at and were "Industrial Training 
Internships" that were part of his studies at The Beneficiary states that these internships 
only took place on weekenqs, and therefore they did not interfere with his employment at 
The Beneficiary also states that his "college attendance hours were 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 3 to 4 days 
a 
week." 
The Petitioner submits documentation from indicating that the fourth semester of the 
Beneficiary's master's degree program involved an "Industry Internship and Comprehensive Report 
Writing." The previously submitted transcripts described the fourth semester's major activity as "E­
Business Project Training and its Report Submission." 
On Form DS-158, which the Petitioner acknowledges but does not submit, the Beneficiary described 
himself as a "Management Trainee" at and an "Associate Dealer" at 
The "Management Trainee" title appears to be compatible with the Beneficiary' s 
claim of an internship, the ~'Associate Dealer" title less so; but if these were both training 
internships, as the Beneficiary now maintains, then the question arises as to why the Beneficiary 
would require low-level training at a time when he was already the vice president of 
In response to our NOID/RFE, the Petitioner submits a copy of the Beneficiary' s Form DS-157, and 
notes that "item # 12 did not require information about current employer." Although this assertion is 
correct, Form DS-157 is only one of three forms that the Beneficiary submitted when he filed his 
nonimmigrant visa application. Form DS-157 is clearly marked as a "Supplement" to the main 
application form (Form DS-156). 
Unlike Form DS-157, Form DS-156 did ask specifically for information about the Beneficiary's 
then-current employment, and therefore there was no need to repeat that information on the 
supplement. As noted previously, the Beneficiary listed his "Present Occupation" as "Student 
Completed" on Form DS-156. Line 20 of Form DS-156 asked the Beneficiary to list the "Name and 
Address of Present Employer or School." The Beneficiary left the line blank. 
12 
(b)(6)
MatterofR-USA LLC 
Likewise, on Form DS-158, the Beneficiary left the "Work Experience- Present" line blank. The 
Petitioner's latest brief contains a specific reference to "Item #4 of Form DS-158," indicating 
detailed familiarity with the form, but the Petitioner does not address the portion of that form that 
concerns "Work Experience - Present." 
The Beneficiary completed all three visa application forms at the same time, but the Petitioner's 
response to our NOIDIRFE includes only Form DS-157, which is the only form that did not ask for 
information about the Beneficiary's then-current employment. The Petitioner did not submit copies 
of Forms DS-156 or DS-158, where the Beneficiary could have, but did not, claim employment with 
Upon review of the evidence, we find that the Petitioner has not overcome our key concern 
. - expressed in the NOID/RFE: that the Beneficiary provided employer information on his 
nonimmigrant visa application forms in October 2007, but did not mention 
Several years later, the Beneficiary sought immigration benefits that rely, in part, on a claim of 
employment at in 2007. The Petitioner has not overcome this major 
discrepancy. 
With respect to the claim that the Beneficiary was a part-time student at while working 
full-time for the transcripts show that the Beneficiary took up to eight courses 
per semester. The Petitioner has not shown how this course schedule is compatible with what the 
Petitioner and the Beneficiary claim was part-time study. 
On balance, we conclude that the Beneficiary did not work for and that the 
materials relating to that claimed employment are not authentic. The alternative - that the 
Beneficiary either neglected or forgot to mention that he was actively serving as the vice president of 
a company when he filled out his nonimmigrant visa application- is implausible. 
USC IS will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits evidence which contains false information. 
In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien 
or an employer seeking immigration benefits. 20 However, if a petition includes serious errors and 
discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer 
provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude 
that the claims stated in the petition are not true.21 
In this case, the discrepancies described lead us to conclude that the documents submitted to .show 
that the Beneficiary was vice president of from 2005 to 2007, are neither true 
nor credible. This evidence is material to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). When 
given an opportunity to rebut these findings, the Petitioner submitted an incomplete copy of the 
Beneficiary's nonimmigrant visa application, with an explanation that does not account for the other 
20 See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir., 2003). 
21 See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
13 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-USA LLC 
forms in that application. The Petitioner has also submitted newly executed affidavits rather than 
verifiable documentation that can be reliably dated to the period in question. We conclude that the 
Petitioner submitted false documentation, including letters and pay receipts for employment that did 
not actually take place. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires that one 
willfully make a material misstatem~nt to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. 22 The term "willfully" means knowing and 
intentionally, as distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts 
are otherwise.23 To be considered material, the misrepresentation must be one which "tends to shut 
off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in 
a proper determination that he be excluded." 
24 · .~ 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa 
petition proceedings, the officer must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false 
representation to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the 
misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. 25 
First, as previously discussed, the Petitioner provided USCIS with false documents intended to 
establish that the Beneficiary worked abroad for 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.26 Here, the submission of falsified letters and 
payroll documents in support of this nonimmigrant petition constitutes a false representation to a 
government official. 
Second, we find that the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. The Petitioner has 
submitted a copy of a letter dated December 1, 2009, from to 
purporting to recommend the Beneficiary for a transfer from to the petitioning 
company. If the Beneficiary did not work for the Petitioner would not have received this 
letter in 2009 and would have kno:wn that claims regarding the Beneficiary's past employment 
contained false information. We conclude that the correspondence relating to the claimed 
recruitment is not authentic, and was created specifically to support the petition and, thereby, 
procure immigration benefits for the Beneficiary. 
Third, the evidence is material to the Beneficiary's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision-
22 Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). 
23 See Matter ofTijam, 22 l&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 
1979). 
24 Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
25 See Matter of M-, 6 1&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961 ); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 
15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
26 INSGencoOp.No.91-39, 1991 WL 1185150(April30, 1991). 
14 
Matter of R-USA LLC 
making body.27 In the context of a visa petition, a misrepresented fact is material if the 
misrepresentation cut off 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? 8 The misrepresentations cut off a 
potential line of inquiry regarding the Beneficiary's employment history, which is directly material 
to the Beneficiary's eligibility under the statutory requirement that the Beneficiary must have 
worked abroad as a manager or executive. 29 
In light of the contradictory evidence and information we described above, we find that the 
Petitioner knowingly submitted documents containing false statements in an effort to mislead USCIS 
on an element that is 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. Therefore, we hereby enter a 
finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the Petitioner. This finding of willful 
material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an 
ISSUe. 
V. CONCLUSION 
The petitiOn will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofR-USA LLC, ID# 124386 (AAO Oct. 6, 2016) 
27 
Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). 
28 See Ng, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. 
29 See section IO)(a)(l5)(L) ofthe Act. See also 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
15