Case 8:15-cv-01900-CEH-MAP Document 34 Filed 06/14/17 Page 21 of 35 PageID 290 22 alien’s eligibility and [b] which might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded. Azim, 314 Fed. Appx. at 196, Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I. & N. Dec. 288, 289 (BIA 1975) quoting the Attorney General’s Opinion in Matter of S-and B-C-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436, 447-49); Cf. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759, 772 (1988)(holding that a concealment or misrepresentation is material if it has “a natural tendency to influence the decisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service”); CAR at 178. As the Eleventh Circuit has noted The important factor is how the case would have appeared to the consul had he been in possession of all the facts at the time application was made.

Materiality is a fact that would make an alien excludable or shut off a line of inquiry that may result in exclusion. Matter of S--- & B--- C---, 9 I & N. Dec. 436 (BIA 1960). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined in the case of Ali v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 443 F.3d 804, 812 (11th Cir. 2006), that materiality requires disclosure of a kind that would make inadmissibility “apparent” and would have adversely affected the application for an immigra- tion benefit.