dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

US. Department of IIonleland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
f&mwybg data deleted to 
pent clei : i;j tinwananted 
invasion o perr - .I:..! privacy 
FILE: EAC 06 001 53 101 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 1 4 2008 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 
%be* P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 06 001 53101 
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 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. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3) and that "the petitioner is an internationally renowned outstanding entertainer." 
On January 14,2008, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 AA07s notice stated: 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) calls for documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. In support of the 
petition, you submitted photocopies of two Award Certifications from the "Third Art and Culture 
Festival in Chengdu City." The October 1991 Award Certification states that you won an "Actor 
Prize" at the "Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City for [your] excellent performance" in 
"The Fairy of Blue Snake." The 1997 Award Certification states that you received an "excellent 
performance" award at "the Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City" for your "Changing 
Faces and Fire Injecting from Mouth" show. The preceding awards were allegedly issued to you six 
years apart in 1991 and 1997, but they both state that they are from the "Third Art and Cultural 
Festival in Chengdu City." [Emphasis added] By submitting these conflicting award certificates, it 
appears you have sought to obtain a visa by fraud and willful 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 59 1. 
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. If you do not 
submit such evidence within the allotted thirty-day period, the AAO will dismiss your appeal. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(5), the petitioner was also requested to submit originals of 
the following: 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 3 
1. October 1991 "Award Certification" stating that the petitioner won an "Actor Prize" at the "Third 
Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City for his excellent performance7' in "The Fairy of Blue 
Snake." 
2. 
 1997 "Award Certification" stating that the petitioner received an "excellent performance" award 
at "the Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City" for his "Changing Faces and Fire 
Injecting from Mouth" show. 
3. September 1985 "Award Certification" issued by the Cheng Du City Culture Bureau stating that 
the petitioner was awarded a "First Place Prize in the Youth Performance Competition of the 
Sichuan Opera held in Chengdu City in 1985 for his excellent performance." 
4. September 1997 certificate bearing the seal of the "China Tourism and Culture Festival and the 
Organizing Committee of Guang Dong Carnival" stating: "The [I9197 China and Tourism and 
Culture Festival and the Organizing Committee of Guang Dong Carnival hereby awarded you this 
Certificate to thank you for your contribution to the activity of 'Developing and Spreading the 
Chinese Culture, Promoting the Development of Tourism Industry.'" 
In accordance with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(5) and (16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 30 days 
(plus 3 days for mailing) in which to respond to the AAO's notice. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a February 6,2008 letter stating: 
In April 2005, I came to the United States . . . . That year I gave the orignals of my resume of my art 
career, my occupational title, and my awards to my lawyer and had him sent [sic] these documents to the 
U.S.C.I.S. to apply for Extraordinary Ability Green Card. Now, I no longer have these originals, so I 
only have some photos to attached [sic] within. 
The petitioner's response did not include the originals of the four award certificates requested by the AAO, 
nor does the record reflect that counsel ever sent the originals to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 
in support of the petition.1 Further, the photographs submitted by the petitioner do not show any of the four 
award certificates. Regarding the petitioner's failure to submit the requested original documents, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(5) provides: "Failure to submit the requested original document by the 
deadline may result in denial or revocation of the underlying application or benefit." Accordingly, this 
petition cannot be approved. 
The petitioner's response included an October 2, 1988 playbill listing him as a erfonner of the "Chuan Opera 
House of Cotton Rose of Chengdu City," a letter of support from and evidence of cultural 
performances given by the petitioner here in the United States. However, none of this documentation addresses 
the conflicting award certificates from the "Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City" bearing issue 
dates of 1991 and 1997. The petitioner's response includes no independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the AAO's finding that he submitted falsified material in support of the petition. 
Section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
The record reflects that photocopies of the award certificates were submitted at the time of filing and in response to the 
director's request for evidence. 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 4 
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 conflicting 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 requested evidence precludes approval of the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5). In addition, 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. Even if the petitioner had submitted originals, the 
petition could not be approved because the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the requested 
classification. 
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 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
EAC06001 53101 
Page 5 
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). The relevant criteria will be 
addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 28, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an "Actor of Sichuan Opera." 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, internationally 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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" 
as "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 petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a September 1985 "Award Certification" issued by the Cheng Du City Culture 
Bureau stating that he was awarded a "First Place Prize in the Youth Performance Competition of the Sichuan 
Opera held in Chengdu City in 1985 for his excellent performance." [Emphasis added] This award reflects 
local recognition rather than national or international recognition. Further, this award is limited by its terms 
to "youth performers and thus excludes more experienced and established actors from consideration. As 
such, the petitioner's receipt of a youth award is not an indication that he "is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Aside from the preceding deficiencies, we cannot ignore that the petitioner was over 30 years old at the time 
he received this "youth" performance award.* The petitioner's age at the time he received this award 
contradicts the plain language of the award. 
As discussed previously, the petitioner submitted an October 1991 "Award Certification" stating that he won 
an "Actor Prize" at the "Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City for his excellent performance" in 
"The Fairy of Blue Snake." The petitioner also submitted a 1997 "Award Certification" stating that he 
received an "excellent performance" award at "the Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City" for his 
The record reflects that the petitioner was born on July 25, 1955. 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 6 
"Changing Faces and Fire Injecting from Mouth" show. These awards reflect local recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. Further, although the preceding awards were allegedly issued to the 
petitioner six years apart in 1991 and 1997, they both state that they are from the "Third Art and Cultural 
Festival in Chengdu City." The different years for these awards contradict their inscription that they are both 
from the "Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu City." 
On January 14, 2008, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner that his submission of conflicting award certificates from the "Third Art and Cultural 
Festival in Chengdu City" indicated that he had sought to obtain a visa by fraud and willful misrepresentation 
of a material fact. The petitioner, however, failed to submit independent and objective evidence to overcome 
the AAO's finding. 
With regard to the 1991 and 1997 award certificates from the "Third Art and Cultural Festival in Chengdu 
City" and the "youth" performance award received by the petitioner in 1985 at the age of thirty, 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 582, 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 591. 
The petitioner also submitted a September 1997 certificate bearing the seal of the "China Tourism and Culture 
Festival and the Organizing Committee of Guang Dong Carnival" stating: "The [I9197 China and Tourism 
and Culture Festival and the Organizing Committee of Guang Dong Carnival hereby awarded you this 
Certificate to thank you for your contribution to the activity of 'Developing and Spreading the Chinese 
Culture, Promoting the Development of Tourism Industry."' There is no evidence showing that this 
certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the performing arts, rather than 
simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's participation in cultural activities at the festival or carnival. 
As discussed previously, on January 14, 2008, this office issued a notice requesting the petitioner to submit 
the originals of the preceding four award certificates. The petitioner failed to submit the requested 
documentation. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(5), the petitioner's failure to comply with 
the AAO's request for the originals of these award certificates constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a "Special Award" from the 
"National Drama Stunt Show" dated October 1998. The record, however, contains no evidence establishing 
the significance and magnitude of the preceding show. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. There is no 
evidence showing that the preceding award commanded national or international recognition consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 7 
Docurnentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzfication 
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 satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an "Actor Certificate" issued in December 1998 stating: "This is to certify that the 
credential holder is up to the tenure of the corresponding professional and technical position described in the 
Proposed Regulations issued by the state and therefore has full qualifications for the corresponding 
professional and technical position." The English language translation accompanying this certificate states 
that the issuing organization is "not legible." On appeal, counsel argues that the preceding certificate meets 
this criterion. The documentation submitted by the petitioner, however, fails to specify the name of the 
association in which the petitioner claims membership or its specific admission requirements. We cannot 
conclude that possessing an employment qualifications certificate is tantamount to membership in an association 
in the field requiring outstanding achievement. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in associations in the field 
requiring outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in his field or an allied one. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material 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. 
In general, 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 distnbution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication or from a publication printed in a language that the 
vast majority of the country's population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distnbution, 
unlike small local community papers.3 
In response to the director's request for evidence and on appeal, the petitioner submitted articles dated 
October 19, 2005, July 1 1, 2006, and October 5, 2006 in the WorM Journal. The petitioner also submitted an 
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, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 8 
article dated March 23, 2006 in the Epoch Times and an article dated September 28, 2006 in the New Jersey 
Weekly Journal. The authors of these Chinese-language articles were not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 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 preceding articles were accompanied by only partial English 
language translations rather than full translations as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3); therefore, it cannot be 
determined that the articles were primarily about the petitioner. Further, there is no evidence (such as 
circulation statistics) showing that the preceding publications qualify as professional or major trade 
publications or other form of major media. Coverage in a publication read by only a small ethnic segment of a 
country's total population is not evidence of national or international acclaim. Nevertheless, the preceding 
articles were all published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these articles in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specfication for which class$cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[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." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "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). For example, judging a 
national contest for professional performers is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for 
amateurs. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a judging credential dated 2006 from the Chinese Festival Association of 
New Jersey. There is no evidence showing the specific events the petitioner judged, the names of the 
individuals he evaluated, their level of expertise, or any other documentation of his assessments (such as a 
judge's scoring sheet). Nor is there evidence establishing the level of prestige associated with judging events 
run by the Chinese Festival Association of New Jersey. Nevertheless, the preceding credential was issued to 
the petitioner subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed previously, a petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45, 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this credential in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted photographs, reference letters, event programs, and a DVD (digital video disc) 
showing that he took part in various stage performances. For example, on appeal the petitioner submits an 
event program from the 2006 Chinese Cultural Festival reflecting that he performed "Changing Face" and 
"Spitting Fire" routines at Battery Park in New York on September 16, 2006. The preceding performance at 
Battery Park occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed previously, a petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
45,49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this performance in this proceeding. 
The plain language of this criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and 
painters) rather than for than for performing artists such as the petitioner. In the performing arts, sustained 
national or international acclaim is generally not established merely by performing in public, but rather by 
consistently attracting a substantial national or international audience. For this reason, the regulations 
establish separate criteria, especially for those whose work is in the performing arts. The petitioner's 
performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(x). Nevertheless, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's level of performance or 
artistic venues are consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. As such, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The petitioner submitted reference letters from the, President of the Fu Rong Hua Sichuan Opera 
Theater Group, and, President of the Sichuan Opera Institute. On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
letter from the China Chengdu Lotus Chuan Opera indicating his monthly salary. These three letters include 
no address, telephone number, or any other information through which their authors may be contacted. The 
letter fi-om states that the petitioner "was assigned the role of protagonist in plays and shows 
performed by the Fu Rong Hua Sichuan Opera Theater Group," but there is no supporting evidence to 
establish that the petitioner's role for the troupe was leading or critical. For example, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's name frequently received top billing or that the popularity of the troupe 
increased when the petitioner was known to be performing. Nor is there evidence demonstrating how the 
petitioner's role differentiated him from the other performers employed by the Fu Rong Hua Sichuan Opera 
Theater Group or the China Chengdu Lotus Chuan Opera troupe. As such, the petitioner has not established 
that he was responsible for his troupes' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Further, there is no evidence showing 
that the organizations for which the petitioner has worked have distinguished reputations. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 10 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
. On appeal, the petitioner submits two letters attesting to his monthly salary in China, but these letters include no 
address, telephone number, or any other information through which their authors may be contacted. The 
petitioner also submits a People's Republic of China income tax form for October 2004 and a bank account 
transaction statement for January 2005 to March 2005. The plain language of this criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis 
for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's October 2004 income tax form and bank account transaction 
statement for the first quarter of 2005 show that "the petitioner obtained commercial success." These documents 
have already been addressed under the previous regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(x) calls for evidence of commercial successes in 
the form of "sales" or "receipts;" simply submitting evidence of the petitioner's monthly income, three months of 
his bank account transactions, or that he participated in Chinese opera performances and other cultural events 
cannot satisfy ths criterion. The record includes no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that 
the petitioner achieved commercial successes in the performing arts in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. For example, there is no indication that the petitioner's performances 
consistently drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in greater audiences than 
other similar performances that did not feature the petitioner. Nor is there evidence showing, for example, 
that the DVD featuring the petitioner's performance had a high national or international sales volume. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a performer 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 a national or international level. Nor is there clear 
EAC 06 001 53101 
Page 11 
evidence that the petitioner will continue working in his area of expertise. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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), afyd. 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. U.S. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (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. $ 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.