dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

i{lcnt~fyin'1 data deleted to 
prevent Ii!WUl'!Y utl\7nrl~nted 
invasioa vf pC~'soaal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship ancllmmig.ralioll S':l"viu> 
Administrative f\ppca" Office (;\;\0) 
20 l'v1as,achw,etts ;\ vc., "J. \V., \'\S 2090 
Washill~ton. DC 2052lJ-20lJO 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC I 5 2011 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § I I 53(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
__ )j(O~ri 1'1 rL r Perry Rhew 
-t Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent 
appeal and reaffirmed that decision on motion. The matter is now before the AAO again on a 
second motion to reopen.) The motion will be dismissed, the previous decision of the AAO will 
be affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. The AAO will also enter a separate 
administrative finding of willful material misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" as an artist pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability 
through extensive documentation and sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO upheld 
the director's determination on appeal and reaffirmed its appellate decision on motion. The 
AAO's December 30,2008 and October 29,2009 decisions are incorporated here by reference. 
I. Derogatory information and finding of willful material misrepresentation 
On November 3, 2011, in accordance with the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO 
issued a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that she submitted 
false documents in support of her petition. The notice also informed the petitioner of additional 
inconsistencies and deficiencies pertaining to the documentary evidence she submitted. 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." 
The AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
1. You submitted a June 3, 2005 letter allegedly issued by _ Manager of 
Cultural Department, Chinese American Association of the United States of America. 
_ letter lists an address in both California and New York. An online 
business search of the records of the California Secretary of State indicates a status of 
"suspended" for the Chinese American Association of the United States of America. 
See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx, accessed on September 30, 2011, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to this notice. Further, a 
search of the "Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the New York State (NYS) 
Department of State, Division of Corporations indicates that "No business entities were 
found" for the "Chinese American Association of the United States of America." See 
http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY SEARCH ENT 
RY, accessed on September 30, 2011, copies incorporated into the record of 
proceeding and attached to this notice. As there is no reliable evidence confirming that 
the Chinese American Association of the United States of America was active in 2005, 
you must submit competent and objective documentary evidence demonstrating the 
existence of this organization in California or New York in 2005. 
2. You submitted a June 8, 2005 letter from Director of International 
Exchange, "U.S. Education, Science & Cultural Foundation, A Non-profit 
I The petitioner's Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicates that she was "filing a motion to reopen a 
decision." Moreover, in her cover letter and in the title of her brief, the petitioner states that it was a motion to reopen. 
Page 3 
Organization," New York. A search of the "Corporation and Business Entity Database" 
of the NYS Department of State, Division of Corporations indicates that "No business 
entities were found" for the "U.S. Education, Science & Cultural Foundation." See 
http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp publiclCORPSEARCH.ENTITY SEARCH ENT 
RY, accessed on September 30,2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding 
and attached to this notice. Further, an online search of the Internal Revenue 
Service's Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, does not list the U.S. Education, Science 
& Cultural Foundation among the organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible 
charitable contributions. 2 See hup:llwww.irs.gov/app/pub-78/, accessed on 
September 30, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to 
this notice. As there is no reliable evidence confirming the existence of the U.S. 
Education, Science & Cultural Foundation, you must submit competent and objective 
documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of this organization in New York in 
2005. 
3. You submitted a March 1, 2002 "World Peace Award Art Competition Award 
Notice" from the World Peace Award Art Competition Committee, University of 
Houston, stating: "Y ou are one of the award recipients for the First World Peace 
Award Competition! ... We have received more than 1000 pieces works [sic] from 
all over the world, such as the United States, Canada, France, Italy, China, Japan, 
etc." In addition, you submitted an "Outstanding Award" certificate dated May 7, 
2002, and program material reflecting that the exhibition and award ceremony 
occurred in May 2002. Your evidence also included a March 16, 2005 letter from 
Co-Chairman of the World Peace Award Art Competition Committee, 
Asian American Studies Center, University of Houston, stating that you participated 
in this competition in 2001 and won one of five outstanding prizes as selected from 
the 8,700 participants. _ letter contradicts the other evidence regarding the 
year (2001 versus 2002) and the number of entrants (8,700 versus 1,000). As you 
submitted conflicting information regarding your World Peace A ward Art 
Competition award, you must submit competent and objective documentary evidence 
from the Asian American Studies Center at the University of Houston verifying your 
receipt of the preceding "Outstanding Award" certificate. 
4. You submitted a certificate allegedly issued by the Golden Ox Art Gallery on September 
17, 2003 stating that it acquired your painting "Golden Fish." The certificate bears a 
seal stating: "Golden Ox Art Corp. Corporate Seal 1994 New York." A search of the 
"Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the NYS Department of State, Division 
of Corporations indicates that Golden Ox Art Corp. is an inactive business that dissolved 
on September 23, 1998. See http://appext9.clos.state.ny.us/corp publici 
CORPSEARCH.ENTITY SEARCH ENTRY, accessed on September 30, 2011, 
copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to this notice. As the 
2 IRS Publication 78 provides a "Cumulative List of 501(c)(3) Organizations." See http://www.irs.!!ov/taxstats/ 
charitablestats/article/O,.id=97 1 86,OO.html, accessed on September 30, 20 II, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding and attached to this notice. 
-Page 4 
Golden Ox Art Corp. did not exist in 2003, the September 17, 2003 certificate you 
submitted is a falsification. 
S. You submitted a Certificate of Award allegedly presented to you by the World Art 
Center on September 26, 2003. The certificate bears a seal stating: "World Art Center, 
Inc. Corporate Seal 1999 New York. " You also submitted a certificate stating that you 
participated in the Charity Bazaar for Tsunami Victims in Southeast Asia. The latter 
certificate is dated January 21, 2005 and lists the World Art Center as a Co-Sponsor of 
the charity bazaar. A search of the "Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the 
NYS Department of State, Division of Corporations indicates that the World Art Center, 
Inc. is an inactive business that dissolved on June 26, 2002. See http://appext9.dos. 
state.ny.us/corp public/CORPSEARCH. ENTITY SEARCH ENTRY, accessed on 
September 27, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to 
this notice. As the World Art Center did not exist in 2003 or 2005, the September 26, 
2003 Certificate of Award and the January 21, 2005 charity bazaar certificate you 
submitted are falsifications. 
6. You submitted a Certificate of Appointment from the International Association of 
Artists with Disabilities dated November 25, 2004. The certificate bears a seal stating: 
"International Disability Artists Association Not For Profit Corporate Seal 2002 New 
York." An online search of the Internal Revenue Service's Publication 78, 
Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170( c) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986, does not list the "International Association of Artists with Disabilities" 
or the "International Disability Artists Association" among the organizations eligible to 
receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. See http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/, 
accessed on September 30, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and 
attached to this notice. As there is no reliable evidence confirming that the IRS 
recognizes the "International Association of Artists with Disabilities" or the 
"International Disability Artists Association" as charitable organizations, you must 
submit competent and objective documentary evidence demonstrating that at least one of 
those entities existed in New York in 2004. 
7. You submitted a July 16, 2005 letter from Chairman, World Culture 
Alliance, New York. letter bears a raised seal stating: "World Culture 
Alliance Corporate Seal 2000 New York." A search of the "Corporation and Business 
Entity Database" of the NYS Department of State, Division of Corporations indicates 
that "No business entities were found" for "World Culture Alliance." See 
http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY SEARCH ENTR 
Y, accessed on October 3, 2011, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding 
and attached to this notice. Further, an online search of the Internal Revenue 
Service's Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 
170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, does not list the World Culture Alliance 
among the organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. 
See http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/, accessed on October 3, 2011, copies 
incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to this notice. As there is no 
reliable evidence confirming the existence of the World Culture Alliance, you must 
submit competent and objective documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of 
this organization in New York in 2005. 
-Page 5 
With regard to your submission of false certificates as indicated in items 4 and 5 above, it 
appears you have sought to obtain a visa by willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Regarding the falsified certificates and the other derogatory information identified in 
items 1 - 7 above, 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. [d. at 591. Because you have submitted false documents 
misrepresenting your achievements, we cannot accord any of your other claims any 
weight. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 15 days (plus 
3 days for mailing) in which to submit evidence to overcome the derogatory information cited 
above. The petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's notice. 
Section 204(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
After an investigation of the facts in each case ... the [Secretary of Homeland Security] 
shall, if he determines that the facts stated in the petition are true and that the alien ... in 
behalf of whom the petition is made is an immediate relative specified in section 201 (b) 
or is eligible for preference under subsection (a) or (b) of section 203, approve the 
petition .... 
According to section 204(b) of the Act, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has 
the authority to issue a determination regarding whether the facts stated in a petition filed 
pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act are true. In this matter, the record shows that the petitioner 
submitted false documents, a finding that the petitioner does not challenge despite being advised 
of the derogatory information in the AAO's November 3, 2011 notice. 
Section 212(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. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires 
that the alien willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N 
Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as 
distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. 
See Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 
Page 6 
I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the misrepresentation must be 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 Ng, 17 I&N 
Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa 
petition proceedings, he or she must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false 
representation to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the 
misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See 
Matter of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter 
of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
First, the petitioner submitted certificates from the World Art Center, Inc. and the Golden Ox Art 
Corporation to USCIS which are false. A misrepresentation can be made to a government 
official in an oral interview, on the face of a written application or petition, or by submitting 
evidence containing false information. INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 (April 30, 
1991). Here, the petitioner's submission of false certificates from these dissolved corporations in 
support of the Form I-140 petition constitutes a false representation to a government official. 
Second, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. The petitioner 
signed the Form I-140 petition, certifying under penalty of perjury that the petition and the 
submitted evidence are all true and correct. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). More specifically, the signature portion of the Form I-140, at 
part 8, requires the petitioner to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of 
perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence 
submitted with it are all true and correct." On the basis of this affirmation, made under penalty 
of perjury, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully and knowingly made the 
misrepresentations. 
Third, the evidence is material to the petitioner's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the 
decision-making body. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cut off a line of inquiry which is relevant 
to the eligibility criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa 
petition. See Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. In the present matter, the false certificates 
submitted by the petitioner relate to her eligibility for the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (vii). Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the misrepresentations were 
material to the petitioner's eligibility. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting false certificates, the petitioner has sought to procure 
a benefit provided under the Act through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Because 
the petitioner has failed to provide competent independent and objective evidence to overcome, 
fully and persuasively, our finding that she submitted falsified documentation, the AAO affirms 
its finding that the petitioner has willfully misrepresented a material fact. This finding of willful 
Page 7 
material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an 
issue.3 
II. Motion to reopen 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). In order to 
properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii) requires that the motion must 
be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision 
has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status 
or result of the proceeding." Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that 
"[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. In this instance, the 
petitioner failed to submit a statement about whether or not the validity of the decision of the 
AAO has been or is subject of any judicial proceeding. As such, the motion must be dismissed 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Even if the petitioner had filed a motion that meets the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4), the AAO would dismiss the motion on the merits. Congress set a very high 
benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner 
demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 H.R. 723 
10i st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of 
specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit 
qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the 
basic eligibility requirements. 
In the decisions of the AAO dismissing the petitioner's original appeal and reaffirming that 
decision on motion, the AAO found that the petitioner failed to establish that she meets at least 
three of the regulatory categories of evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 It is important to note that while it may present the opportunity to enter an administrative finding of willful 
material misrepresentation, the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding an alien 
inadmissible. See Matter of 0, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). Instead, the alien may be found inadmissible at a later 
date when she subsequently applies for admission into the United States or applies for adjustment of status to 
permanent resident status. See sections 212(a) and 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ JJ82(a) and 1255(a). 
-Page 8 
§ 204.5(h)(3).4 The AAO specifically and thoroughly discussed the petitioner's evidence and 
determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
the original contributions of major significance criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the authorship of scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the display criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c'P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). In fact, the AAO found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for any 
of the criteria pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On motion, the petitioner responds to the AAO's most recent decision by repeating many of the 
earlier arguments that she made on appeal and in support of her previous motion. The petitioner 
also resubmits copies of documentary evidence submitted at the time of filing the petition, on 
appeal, and in support of her previous motion. 
The AAO's appellate decision dated December 30, 2008 informed the petitioner that the record 
did not contain certified English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). In support of her subsequent motion, the petitioner submitted a September 5, 
2008 "Certificate of Accuracy" signed by _ affirming a familiarity with English and 
Chinese and that the "above translation from the annexed document in the Chinese language" is 
true and complete. The AAO's October 29, 2009 decision specifically noted that the certificate 
did not identify the translation (singular in the certification) being certified "above" or anywhere 
else on the certificate.5 The submission of a translation certification that does not specifically 
identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements 
of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which requires that any document containing foreign 
language submitted to USCIS 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 petitioner's present 
motion includes multiple certified English translations dated November 16, 2009 that were 
submitted with documentary evidence not previously accompanied by such translations. Once 
again, however, these "Certificate[s] of Accuracy" signed by jo not specifically identify 
the translation being certified "above" or anywhere else on the translator's certificates. Even if 
the AAO were to accept the Certificates of Accuracy submitted on motion, which it does not, the 
petitioner failed to explain why properly certified English language translations were previously 
unavailable and could not have been submitted earlier. The petitioner has been afforded numerous 
different opportunities to submit proper English language translations: at the time of filing the 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
S The record contains similar attestations from dated June 9, 2009, dated March 21, 2005 
and July 16,2002, but these documents also reference a single unidentified translation and cannot 
be considered a certification of all of the translations submitted initially and subsequently. 
Page 9 
petition, in response to the director's notice of intent to deny, at the time filing the appeal, and in 
support of her previous motion. For instance, the AAO specifically informed the petitioner of the 
deficient English language translations in its appellate decision dated December 30, 2008. The 
petitioner, however, failed to comply with the requirements of 8 c.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) in her motion 
filed subsequent to the AAO' s dismissal of her appeal. Where a petitioner has been put on notice 
of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, 
the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time with a subsequent filing. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). If the petitioner had wanted the certified English language translations to be considered, 
she should have submitted the correct documents in the first filing after the AAO raised those 
concerns. See id. 
With regard to the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner's 
latest motion included information posted on the Friends of Fine Artists magazine's website 
describing Chinese Anthology of Fine Arts (referred to in prior AAO decisions as Complete 
Works of Modern Chinese Arts). There is no documentation (such as circulation evidence) 
showing that Chinese Anthology of Fine Arts qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or some other form of major media. Further, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." The evidence 
submitted by the petitioner reflects that Chinese Anthology of Fine Arts included images of the 
work of scores of other artists. Pages 50 and 178 of include only a brief sentence or two about the 
petitioner and her work. Nothing in the publication singles out the petitioner's work from that of the 
numerous other artists. 
Another issue noted in the AAO's December 30,2008 and October 29,2009 decisions relates to 
the petitioner's earlier submission of a March 1, 2002 "Award Notice" from the World Peace 
Award Art Competition Committee, University of Houston, stating: "You are one of the award 
recipients for the First World Peace Award Competition! ... We have received more than 1000 
pieces works [sic] from all over the world, such as the United States, Canada, France, Italy, 
China, Japan, etc." In addition, the petitioner submitted an award ceremony invitation, an 
"Outstanding Award" certificate dated May 7, 2002, and program material reflecting that the 
exhibition and award occurred in May 2002. The petitioner's evidence also included a 
March 16, 2005 letter from Co-Chairman of the World Peace A ward Art 
Competition Committee, Asian American Studies Center, University of Houston, stating that the 
petitioner competed in this competition in 2001 and won one of five outstanding prizes as 
selected from the 8,700 participants. As noted by the AAO in both of its previous decisions,. 
_letter contradicts the other evidence regarding the year (2001 versus 2002) and the 
number of entrants (8,700 versus 1,000). The AAO further noted that 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. at 
591-92. 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 59l. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities, the petitioner has repeatedly failed to 
address the inconsistencies in the record regarding the World Peace Award Art Competition. The 
-Page 10 
petitioner has again failed to overcome these inconsistencies in the present motion. Accordingly, 
doubts remain regarding the reliability and sufficiency of the petitioner's evidence. 
As previously discussed, a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). Based on the 
plain meaning of "new," a new fact is found to be evidence that was not available and could not 
have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. 
The petitioner's present motion has failed to state any new facts and is not supported by affidavits or 
other evidence demonstrating that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
of the field. Instead, the petitioner restates many of the same arguments she made on appeal and in 
her first motion filed after AAO's appellate decision. A review of the documentation submitted in 
support of the petitioner's present motion reveals no fact that could be considered "new" pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 103.S(a)(2). In addition, the petitioner failed to explain why the 
evidence discussed above was previously unavailable and could not have been submitted earlier. 
The petitioner has been afforded multiple opportunities to submit proper English language 
translations and documentation establishing that she has been the subject of published material in 
major media. Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same 
reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered 
evidence. INS v. Doherty, S02 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A 
party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With 
the current motion, the petitioner has not met that burden. Accordingly, the motion to reopen will 
be dismissed. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
FURTHER ORDER: 
The motion to reopen is dismissed, the decision of the AAO dated 
October 29,2009 is affirmed, and the petition remains denied. 
The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted false 
documents in an effort to mislead USCIS on elements material to her 
eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of the 
United States.