Thus these five statements were willful misrepresentations which had the natural tendency to influence the decisions of immigration officials as they tended to shut off a line of inquiry relevant to his eligibility and “which might well” have resulted in his exclusion. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988); see Azim, 314 Fed. Appx. at 196; Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I. & N. Dec. 288, 289 (BIA 1975)(emphasis added). Additionally, as to the misrepresentations on the two DS-156s – CAR at 461- 462, 457-458, 802-803- two in-person consular interviews- CAR at 463, 459) and the Form I-485 (CAR at 164), Plaintiffs claim that whatever answer Osambela put in the marriage box or told the consular officer about his marriage would have resulted in “visitor visa granted” (Dkt.