dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

identifying data deleted to 
preven L clearly unwarranted 
tnvasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. 9 1 153(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. 
I 
%I%- ., , /" 
lkobert P. Wiernann, Chief 
i Administrative Appeals Office 
I 'i 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed 
with a finding of fraud. 
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 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On June 1, 2006, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that she submitted falsified documents in support 
her petition. 
The AAO's June 1,2006 notice stated: 
You 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." 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) calls for the submission of 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. In support of your petition, you submitted articles entitled "Ceramic Artist 
Quan Ming Zi to Discuss Man and Nature at CU," "Chinese artist to teach GMS students," and "First 
American Museum Exhibition Dedicated to Acclaimed Korean Contemporary Ceramic Artist." After 
further investigation, it has been determined that these articles are fraudulent submissions. 
The article entitled "Ceramic Artist Quan Ming Zi to Discuss Man and Nature at CU" was originally 
entitled "Visiting artists Dominguez, Salia discusses art, man and nature in lecture series." The AAO 
was able to obtain the original article at htt~://www.colorado.edu. 
The article entitled "Chinese artist to teach GMS students" was originally entitled "Japanese artist to 
teach GMS students." The AAO was able to obtain the original article at http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us. 
The article entitled "First American Museum Exhibition Dedicated to Acclaimed Korean 
Contemporary Ceramic Artist" was originally entitled "Seattle Asian Art Museum is First American 
Museum Exhibition Dedicated to Acclaimed Korean Contemporary Ceramic Artist." The AAO was 
able to obtain the original article at htt~://www.ex~eriencewashington.com. 
In fact, your name is not mentioned at all in any of the original articles. In an attempt to gain an 
immigration benefit, you altered the original articles that discussed the work of artists Eddie Dominguez, 
Yohei Nishimura, and Yoon Kwang-cho (rather than your own work). By falsely substituting your name 
into articles about these individuals, you have attempted to obtain a visa by fraud and the willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Page 3 
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. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and 
attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The above derogatory information indicates that you have misrepresented the accomplishments of 
others as your own. For this reason, we cannot accord any of your other claims any weight. 
If you choose to contest the AAO's findings, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancies described above. 
The petitioner was afforded thirty days in which to submit evidence to overcome the derogatory 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. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the aforementioned falsified materials, the petitioner has sought 
to procure a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willful misrepresentation of material facts. 
Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and 
persuasively, our findings that she misrepresented her past accomplishments, 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 at 582, 591-92. The remaining documentation and the director's bases of denial will be 
discussed below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority 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 this 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 
Page 4 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
8 204.5(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. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 27, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
an artist. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record reflects that 
the petitioner has been residing in the United States since 1999. Given the length of time between the 
petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than five years), it is reasonable to 
expect her to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has had ample 
time to establish a reputation as an artist in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director's decision stated: 
The petitioner submitted documentation regarding several awards, including a certificate for 
encouragement from the 1 lth Annual Culture Art Association; a certificate naming the petitioner as a 
Talented Young Artist from the Human Resource Department of Jilin Province; a certificate for Best 
Display Award from the National Press Association of China; a certificate for Outstanding Award at 
National Contemporary Handcraft Exhibition from the Contemporary Art Association of P.R. China; 
a Silver Award in Handcraft Series of the Millennium Luxury Architect Design Contest from the 
Architect Department of P.R. China; a certificate for Outstanding Award at the 4th Art Festival from 
the Jilin Government of China; certificate for Second Place at the First Annual Art Festival from the 
Jilin First Annual Art Festival Association; a certificate for Best Reader's Choice Award at the First 
Annual Book Reading Contest from the National Press Association of P.R. China; a certificate 
Page 5 
appointing the petitioner as a Top Ten Young Artist from the Jilin Government of China; and a 
Certificate of Merit from the Queen Elizabeth I1 Arts Council of New Zealand. 
The petitioner did not submit documentation regarding the criteria for any of these awards. There is 
nothing regarding the basis of the awards, the exhibitions or competitions in which such awards were 
given, or any other documentation to show the level or prestige of these awards. Without such 
documentation, the record does not establish that any of the awards are actually nationally or 
internationally recognized as awards for excellence. Many of the awards appear to be, at best, 
provincial level awards. Others appear to be geared specifically to young artists, which would likely 
exclude the most eminent and established artists already working in the field from consideration. It 
also appears that several of the awards appeared to be newly established, such as those from the first 
art festival or book reading contest, which casts doubt as to whether they would actually be nationally 
or internationally recognized. The record is insufficient to demonstrate that any of these awards is 
[sic] nationally or internationally recognized as an award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
We concur with the director's findings. On appeal, the petitioner offers no arguments or new evidence 
specifically addressing these findings. In addition to the above deficiencies, the record includes no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has received any awards subsequent to 2000. The absence of awards in recent 
years indicates that the petitioner's acclaim has not been sustained. The petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classij?cation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director's decision stated: 
The record indicates that the petitioner was accepted as a board member of the Art Association of 
Jilin Province. The petitioner submitted no documentation regarding the criteria for selection as a 
board member and no evidence that membership requires outstanding achievements as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the field. Therefore, the record does not indicate that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding. On appeal, the petitioner offers no arguments or new evidence 
addressing the director's observations. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the$eld for which clmsiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in 
the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as 
major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
Page 6 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the 
New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of 
significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The director's decision stated: 
 "The petitioner submitted three press releases. The record contains no 
documentation regarding where such press releases were actually published. Further, press releases are not 
material written by others based on sustained acclaim, but are rather self-publicity for events." 
After firther investigation, the AAO determined that these three articles were fraudulent submissions. On June 1, 
2006, the AAO requested the petitioner to submit to submit independent and objective evidence to overcome 
the AAO's findings. The petitioner failed to respond to AAO's notice. There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner has been the primary subject of published material in major media. The petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientifc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The director's decision stated: 
The record indicates that the petitioner received a patent regarding a jade porcelain sculpture, and has 
created original works of art. While the record indicates that the petitioner has made original 
contributions to the field, there is nothing to indicate that such contributions have had major 
significance in the field. For instance, there is nothing to show that others are adopting the 
petitioner's artistic methods, or any other documentation of a significant impact on the field as a 
whole. Therefore, the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding. 
 On appeal, the petitioner offers no arguments or new evidence 
addressing the director's observations. 
 Therefore, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director's decision stated: 
The record contains no copies of scholarly articles written by the petitioner. It is noted that one of the 
awards submitted was for a book titled New Technique in Porcelain Making. However, the petitioner 
did not submit a copy of this publication, and there is nothing to show that the book was scholarly in 
nature or that it was a major printing. Therefore, the record does not illustrate that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
1 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
We concur with the director's finding. On appeal, the petitioner offers no arguments or new evidence 
addressing the director's observations. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted several images of what are alleged to be her artistic creations. Without further 
evidence, it cannot be determined if the petitioner's works are among those shown. The images of the 
petitioner's creations were not accompanied by contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or art 
brochure) indicating the specific exhibition or showcase in which they appeared. 
In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's works have been displayed at significant 
national venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's works have been featured along side those of 
artists who enjoy national or international reputations. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated her 
regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the display of her work 
alone. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility 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. 5 204.5(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); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
Page 8 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fraud. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted fraudulent documents in an 
effort to mislead Citizenship and Immigration Services and the AAO on elements 
material to her eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of the 
United States.