dismissed O-1B Case: Fashion Model

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-M-A-, LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 30,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fashion model agency, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a model, as a foreign national 
of extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant 
visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
The instant petition was approved on March 13, 2015. However, the Director of the Vermont 
Service Center subsequently revoked the petition concluding, after issuing a notice of intent to 
revoke (N 0 IR), that the petition was not approvable due to the Petitioner's submission of a falsified 
document. The Director did not address the merits of the Beneficiary's eligibility as a foreign 
national of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner seeks to reverse the Director's finding and submits additional evidence and 
a brief. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work 
in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well­
known in the field of arts." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
.
Matter of F-M-A-, LLC 
Further, the regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 214.2( o )(2)(ii)(C) provides that petitions for 0 foreign nationals 
shall be accompanied by an explanation of the nature of the events or activities, the beginning and 
end dates for the events or activities, and a copy of any itinerary for the events or activities. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Background 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on behalf of the 
Beneficiary, a fashion model. As one of the testimonial letters supporting the petition, the Petitioner 
provided a letter dated August 20, 2014, containing the signature of 
Italy, attesting to the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a fashion 
model. The Petition was approved on March 13, 2015. 
The Director subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approved petitiOn, 
informing the Petitioner of derogatory information and providing it an opportunity to rebut the 
information. The NOIR informed the Petitioner that when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) attempted to verify letter, he and other representatives of 
confirmed that he had not worked for . since July 2012 and, therefore, did not authorize the letter. 
Based on this information , the Director concluded that the Petitioner had submitted a "falsified 
document," and requested evidence to establish the veracity of other testimonial letters affirming the 
Beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a fashion model, including letters from 
France, and 
China. 1 In additio-n, the Director requested docum;ntation to ~how th~ authenticity of contracts 
regarding the Beneficiary ' s proposed employment as a model in the United States. Finally, the 
Director requested additional evidence establishing that a peer consultation provided by 
was authentic? 
In the Petitioner 's response to the NOIR, it submitted a letter from its Director, describing the 
practice by which the Petitioner obtained recommendation letters from on 
behalf of beneficiaries 
through a vetting system whereby the Petitioner stamped cleared letters with the signature of a 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the authenticity of either letters. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner offers a letter from program director of con finn ing the 
authenticity of the company's prior peer group consultation. 
2 
.
Matter of F-M-A- , LLC 
employee. 3 The Petitioner explained that its representatives contacted for authorization to issue 
the letter and mistakenly stamped the letter signed by rather than the 
current employee at Joy who has the same first name as and is authorized to issue letters 
on behalf. 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of a June 2015 letter from and noted that the 
"original signed letter was submitted to USCIS pursuant to a Notice of Intent to Deny for a petition 
filed by the Petitioner for another beneficiary, [B-R-].'' The Petitioner stated that the signed letter 
from confirms support of the letters written on behalf of the Petitioner 's models 
and explains the relationship between the agencies. The Petitioner further averred that the error in 
signatures did not amount to material misrepresentation as the reference letter is not material to the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. The Petitioner did not provide any additional evidence confirming the 
authenticity of the letters from as requested. 
After considering the response, the Director revoked the petition , finding that the Petitioner did not 
provide independent and objective 
evidence to overcome the determination that the Petitioner 
willfully misrepresented the facts and submitted a falsified document. The Director further noted 
that the Petitioner is required to provide a complete itinerary of events which includes the dates of 
the claimed events and that specifies the names, addresses of employers and venues where events 
will be performed. She noted that the signatures on contracts for three prospective employers 
identified on the itinerary appear to exactly match 
the signatures of these individuals on other petitions filed on behalf of other beneficiaries , raising 
questions as to whether the contracts had been mass produced or altered.4 
On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the Director's finding and files a brief and additional material. 
As discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the 
Director's concerns. As such, we will dismiss the appeal. 
B. Discussion 
First, we find that the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence resolving the Director 's concerns 
regarding the submission of a falsified letter, and overcoming the Director's finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. A misrepresentation is an affirmation or manifestation that is 
not in accord with the true facts of the case and can be made to a government official in an oral 
3 Specifically, the Petitioner's director, stated that the company has a long-standing relation ship with 
and she instructed her staff to obtain qualification letters from them when a model is seeking a visa. She describes a 
process for obtaining the letters by which she instructed her staff to "notify when we had a model seeking a visa, 
and, upon his authorization, we would issue and stamp a qualification letter. " She explains that when left 
and was replaced by ,;he was unaware of the change and continued to stamp the referenc e letter s with 
name in error. un appeal, she also states that she suffers from a traumatic brain injur y that has 
compromised her memory and cognitive functions. 
4 In adjudicating this petition, USCIS contacted who stated that while he did 
not actually sign the document in question , he "likely authorized someone to sign on his behal f." 
3 
.
Matter ofF-M-A- , LLC 
interview, on the face of a written application or petition, or by offering evidence containing false 
information. See INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 (April30, 1991). The law provides 
for a wide range of potential consequences for material misrepresentation, including the denial of the 
visa petition , a finding of fact that may render an individual foreign national inadmissible to the 
United States , or criminal prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1546; see also , U.S. v. 0 'Connor , 
158 F.Supp.2d 697 (E.D. Va. 2001). 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals, a material misrepresentation requires someone to 
willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 
(BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowingly and intentionally, as distinguished from 
accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of Healy 
and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). 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." Matt er of Ng, 
17 l&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and 
material misrepresentation in visa petition proceedings , he or she 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. See Matter of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of L-L-, 9 l&N Dec. 324 
(BIA 1961 ); Kai Hing Hui , 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
In revoking the petition, the Director pointed to conflicting information in the record of proceedings 
including the fact that letter was stamped with his name on a date when he no longer 
worked for On appeal , the Petitioner again states that the letter in question bore the signature 
stamp of an individual no longer employed at but maintains that the discrepancy 
resulted from the Petitioner's accidental use of the wrong signature stamp due to confusion over who 
had authorized the letter, rather than The Petitioner provides a 
copy of a July 2015 letter from in which he describes a particular group of letters that 
were "rubber stamped" 
by the Petitioner in name, and states that his firm stands behind 
those letters , including the letter on behalf of beneficiary B-R . However , we note that the record 
does not include the original letter signed by such that we can confirm its veracity. 
Further, the letter indicates that it was submitted in response to USCIS's notice of intent to deny a 
visa petition filed on behalf of B-R-, and it does not reference the petition filed on behalf of this 
Beneficiary. 5 The Director concluded that the letter fails to resolve the Petitioner ' s apparent willful 
5 The Petitioner also provides a copy of a previous AAO decision Matter of F-M-A-, LLC, ID# 16597 (AAO May 25, 
20 16) relating to the petition filed by the Petitioner on behalf of 8-R-. In that case, the Petitioner also provided a copy of 
a letter purportedl y signed by after he left In our decision , we found an original letter from 
, provided on appeal , stating specifically that he had authorized the letter of support from on behalf of the 
relevant benefici ary was sufficient to withdraw the finding of willful misrepresentation and remand the matter for further 
consideration. We note that the current record does not include such a letter relating to the instant Beneficiary. 
Regardless the submitted AAO decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in 
4 
.
Matter of F-M-A- , LLC 
submission of manufactured documents in support of the visa petition and we agree with that 
determination. The appeal will be dismissed on this basis. 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner did not overcome the Director's findings of willful material 
misrepresentation, we need not fully address other issues evident in the record. That said, we will 
briefly identify an additional ground of ineligibility not raised by the Director to inform the 
Petitioner that this issue should be addressed in future proceedings. Specifically, we note that public 
records indicate that one of the companies listed on the Petitioner's itinerary, 
is listed as inactive by the New York Department of State as it was dissolved on July 29, 2009 . 
Based on the evidence provided, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary can complete the 
itinerary. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matt er of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. ld. For this additional reason, the petition 
will remain revoked. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not overcome the grounds for revocation or 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matt er of F-M-A-, LLC, ID# 927787 (AAO Mar. 30, 20 18) 
future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .3(c) . Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific 
facts of the individual case , and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceeding s, the issues 
considered, and applicable law and policy. 
5