dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
iQgltiqtispdblQbaod0 
pvmf ckb mwamnted 
'Dv* dparaJ privacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
62 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: DEC 1 8 
EAC 06 014 50151 
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. 3 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 
kobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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. 
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. 5 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. 
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 
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. 
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, 60898-9 (November 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. 9 204.5(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). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 30, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an art craft artist and a director. As required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner must demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since March 28, 1999. 
Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date 
(more than six years), it is reasonable to expect him 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 petitioner submitted the following: 
Certificate issued by the Chinese National Labor Union stating that the petitioner was awarded the 
title of "National Outstanding Individual" (October 1995) 
Certificate issued by the Chinese Artists' Association stating that the petitioner was awarded the title 
of "Outstanding Individual" (May 20, 1998) 
Honor Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork "Mandarin Duck Play the Water'' won the 
"Outstanding Award" at the "1994 Shanxi Culture Festival'' (August 1994) 
Certificate issued by the "Bureau of Culture of Hebei Province" stating that the petitioner's artwork 
"Dragonfly" was awarded the title of "Excellent Art Work" (October 22, 1993) 
Certificate stating that the petitioner's kite "Butterfly" won the Golden Award at the "Anniversary of 
National Day of Shanxi Province" (September 1990) 
Certificate issued by the "State Department" of China stating that the petitioner received a special 
government allowance (October 1, 1992) 
Honor Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork "Flower and Bird" won the Golden Award at 
the "1994 Xihun Exhibition of Hanzhou Province - Fifth Chinese Industrial Fine Artists' Collection 
Exhibition" (1 994) 
Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork "Moon Light" won the "Outstanding Award" at the 
"Excellent Industrial Arts Exhibition" (November 1995) 
Certificate issued by the Chinese Artists' Association stating that the petitioner was awarded the title 
of "Outstanding Individual" (May 20, 1998) 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to CIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, 
and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. The translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates were not certified as required by 
the regulation. 
In regard to items 3, 4, 5, and 7, we find that these awards reflect provincial recognition rather than national 
or international recognition. 
In regard to items 1 through 9, there is no evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding the petitioner's 
awards or evidence showing that they command a substantial level of recognition. Further, the record 
includes no evidence that would demonstrate the number of recipients, the criteria for granting the awards, the 
level of expertise of those considered, and the number of individuals eligible to compete. We note here that 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international 
acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate evidence showing that the awards 
presented under this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. In this case, there is no 
supporting documentation from the awarding entities or print media to establish that the preceding awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized. 
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, the record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has won 
any significant awards in China or the United States subsequent to 1998. The absence of such awards 
indicates that the petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China during the 
1990's. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~cation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satis@ this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the director's December 30, 2005 notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted what is 
alleged to be his membership certificate (issued in August 1996) for the Chinese Artists' Association. There 
is no evidence showing the duration of petitioner's membership or whether he remained active in this 
association in recent years. The petitioner also submitted documents entitled "The Chinese Artist Association 
Introduction" and "Chinese Artist Association Regulation." We cannot accept these documents as evidence, 
however, because the English language translations accompanying them were not certified as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Further, the source of these documents has not been properly identified. 
There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in the Chinese Artists' Association required 
outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in 
consideration of his admission to membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the displq of the alien's work in thefteld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Although the petitioner claims to be an artist, the record includes no photographic evidence of his artwork on 
display at artistic exhibitions or showcases. In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
Page 5 
works have been displayed at significant national or international venues. Nor is there any indication that the 
petitioner's works have been featured along side those of artists who have national or international 
reputations. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated his regular participation in shows or exhibitions at 
exclusive venues devoted largely to the display of his artwork alone. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the3eld. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the "State Department" of China (dated October 1, 1992) stating 
that he received a special government allowance. The petitioner's certificate, however, does not indicate the 
amount of his government allowance. Further, the record includes no official financial documentation (such as 
payroll records or income tax forms) showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any given period of time. 
The plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of high remuneration "in relation 
to others in the field." In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has earned a level of 
compensation significantly higher than that of others in his field. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner 
earns a level of compensation that places him among the highest paid artists in the United States or China. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In conclusion, we find that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Further, the record does not establish that 
whatever acclaim the petitioner had in China has been sustained since his entry into the United States in 1999. 
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 within 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 
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. 
 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). 
Page 6 
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.