dismissed EB-1A Case: Alternative Medicine

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identiQing data deletea to 
prevent clearly unwmted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
ERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: f E8 2 0 
EAC 06 005 53265 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
U 
bert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed 
with a finding of fraud and material misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On January 8, 2008, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he submitted falsified material in support of 
his petition. The notice specifically observed that the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifying 
under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." 
Regarding the fraudulent documentation, the AAO's notice stated: 
you submitted d 
' "Chinese Astrology," 
and "Palace." After further investigation, it has been determined that 
you falsely substituted your name into these documents and misrepresented the biography and work 
of as your own. The AAO was able to obtain the original material at 
http://www.shaolinworld.com (accessed on December 6, 2007). Attached to thls notice are nine 
documents fi-om ths internet site which you pla~arized and then altered by replacing the name ' 
' with = 
By submitting the preceding falsified documents and misrepresenting your biography and achievements, 
you have sought to obtain a visa by fraud and willfbl misrepresentation of a material fact. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591 -92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. Id. at 591. Because you have submitted falsified documents, we cannot accord any 
of your other claims any weight. 
If you choose to contest the AAO's finding, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancy described above. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(i), the petitioner was afforded fifteen days (plus 3 days for 
mailing) in which to submit evidence to overcome the derogatoty information cited above. The petitioner failed 
to respond to the AAO's notice. 
Section 2 12(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. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is 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." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the evidence described above, the petitioner has sought to procure 
a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Because the 
petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our 
finding that he submitted falsified documentation in support of the petition, we affirm our finding of fraud. 
This finding of fraud shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the 
remaining documentation. As stated above, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. The petitioner's documentation and the director's bases of denial will be 
discussed below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in ths subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this 
section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3): 
Initial evidence: A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise. Such evidence shall include evidence of a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, international recognized award), or at least three of the following: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) 
 Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This petition, filed on September 28, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Qi Gong Master in Alternative Medicine. In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted the 
Page 5 
aforementioned fraudulent material plagiarized from http:ilwww.shaolinworld.com. In a September 25, 2005 
letter accompanying the petition, the petitioner claimed a "total salary" of "around $200,000 for 2001, 
$230,000 . . . in 2002 and $250,000 . . . for 2003." The record, however, includes no evidence to support the 
petitioner's assertion regarding his salary. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). 
On November 22, 2005, the director issued a notice of intent to deny to the petitioner requesting evidence 
pertaining to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner failed to respond to the director's 
notice. As such, the director found that the petitioner had not established eligibility for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. We concur with the director's determination. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on December 11, 2006. The appellate submission was unaccompanied by 
evidence or arguments addressing specific criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). On the Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal to the AAO, the petitioner indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO with 
30 days. As of this date, more than thirteen months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be withn the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligbility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record includes no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003). The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 
557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."). See also, Janka v. US. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted fraudulent documentation in 
an effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on elements material to his eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States.