What to Know When U.S. Immigration Accuses you of Lying

Sheridan Green

6/4/2026

USCIS is currently engaged in a concerted effort to find reasons to disqualify applicants from benefit requests (especially naturalization). They are scouring files, sometimes very old files, to try to find inconsistencies and then making allegations of “willful misrepresentation.” Therefore, what follows is a primer on misrepresentation.

What is misrepresentation?

A willful misrepresentation in immigration law has the following elements:

·       The alien procured, or sought to procure, a benefit under U.S. immigration laws;

·       The alien made a false representation;

·       The false representation was willfully made;

·       The false representation was material; and

·       The false representation was made to a U.S. government official, generally an immigration or consular officer.

Crucially, misrepresentation is a ground of “inadmissibility” under INA § 212(a)(6)(C) (“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 chapter is inadmissible.”)

The “inadmissibility” grounds are the list of disqualifications that prevent non-citizens from entering the country. However, many benefit request statutes include tie-ins to the inadmissibility grounds. So, for example, when you file for adjustment of status you have to prove you’re “admissible” again, even though you’re already in the U.S.

The lie must be for an immigration benefit request

To make the person inadmissible the (alleged) lie had to have been in furtherance of an immigration benefit request. So, for example, lying on your taxes would not involve an immigration benefit request. (Although, depending on the lie, it could have other consequences. For example, some benefit requests are discretionary, and bad behavior might be considered on the discretion side even if not strictly making you inadmissible.)  

The representation had to be false

Second, the representation had to be false. This seems obvious, but we had a case where USCIS tried to argue that a client had misrepresented himself merely because he was unable to positively prove necessary work experience at a past job (for an I-140 immigrant visa application). They may have been right that he presented insufficient evidence, but lack of evidence is not proof of falsity.

The representation had to be “willful”

Third, the representation had to be willful. “Willful” means that you knew the statement you were making was false. So, for example, in Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 1979), the individual was charged with misrepresentation for telling a consular officer he wished to “visit the United States” and later enrolling at a school. The BIA found that he had not committed a misrepresentation because he likely believed that “visit the United States” encompassed several activities including investigating this school. Importantly, he had been frank about his interest in going to school in other statements: the circumstances showed he was not trying to hide something. The Board also held that “inasmuch as an alien excluded under the first clause of section 212(a)(19) is perpetually barred from admission to the United States, the factual basis of the finding of excludability should be subject to close scrutiny, particularly where the alleged fraud or misrepresentation involves a disputed issue as to the alien's subjective intent.” That is an admonition USCIS is starting to forget.

The representation had to be “material”

Fourth, the misrepresentation had to be material. “Materiality” means the lie made any difference to the benefit requested. If I approach a border officer for admission to the U.S. in H1B status and I say Brittney Spears is my grandmother, that would be a lie. But it would not be “material” because Brittney Spears being my grandmother (or not) makes no difference to my eligibility for H1B status. On the other hand, if I lie about having a bachelors degree or a job offer or my intent to work for someone other than my H-1B sponsor, those are all material to my H1B eligibility.

Materiality is very important. We once litigated a misrepresentation case for an applicant who had been on an E2 visa for many years and was applying for an immigrant visa petition. USCIS claimed she had misrepresented herself because multiple DS-160 applications over the last decade had failed to list her youngest child. (This turned out to be the fault of a lazy lawyer who just used the same application over and over). We successfully argued the misrepresentation was not material because the existence of a child made no difference to her eligibility for E2 status. A misrepresentation, yes, but not a material one.

Made to an immigration officer

Finally, the misrepresentation has to have been made to an immigration officer or consular officer. In Matter of Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794, 796 (BIA 1994), for example, a Haitian had obtained a false U.S. visa but when he approached the border for entry he was forthright about the fact that it was a false visa. He may have lied to someone to obtain the document (or not), but it wasn’t a U.S. immigration officer.

Conclusion

Misrepresentation allegations are very serious and are becoming more frequent and made by USCIS less carefully than ever before. The law in this area can also be complex. If you need help responding to a misrepresentation allegation, please hire a competent lawyer.