dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
laedtifying data deletea tcb 
Pm ,eat clearly unwarrante ;nvasinn of oemonal orivac* 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 2 2@6 
WAC 05 208 5 1299 
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. § 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Ap$eals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any fixther inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 
5 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California 
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 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 qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On June 1, 2006, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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 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. At the time of filing of your petition and again on appeal, you 
submitted an article entitled "Art, Mobile style" dated February 25th. This article misspells the word 
"Kuala Lumpur" and contains various grammatical errors. We further note that the city listed in the 
dateline, Kuala Lumpur, differs from [the] city where your art exhibition was allegedly being 
promoted, Mobile, Alabama. After further investigation, it was determined that this article was a 
fraudulent submission. The AAO was able to obtain the original article at httv://www.w~mi.com. In an 
attempt to gain an immigration benefit, you altered the original article that discussed the work of artists 
Kim McKeand and Jennifer Menser (rather than your own work). By falsely substituting your name into 
this article, you have attempted to obtain a visa by fraud and the willful misrepresentation of a material 
fact. 
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 artistic 
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 finding, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancies described above. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(5), the petitioner was also requested to submit the original 
versions of several photocopied documents submitted with the petition. In accordance with the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(5) and (16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 12 weeks in which to respond to the AAO's 
notice. 
The petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's notice. 
 Regarding the petitioner's failure to submit the 
requested original documents, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5) provides: "If the requested original, 
other than one issued by the Service, is not submitted within 12 weeks, the petition or application shall be 
denied or revoked." Accordingly, this petition cannot be approved. 
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 a falsified article, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit 
provided under the Act using a fraudulent document. Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent 
and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our finding that the "Art, Mobile style'' article 
was a fraudulent submission, we affm our finding of fiaud. 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 
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 
Page 4 
(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. 
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 earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Thls petition, filed on July 13, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an 
artist. 
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: 
Photocopy of a certificate stating that the petitioner received an "Excellent Art Project" award "at the 
2002 Art Exhibtion sponsed [sic] by CHIP Malaysia" 
Photocopy of an honor certificate bearing the names of "Sijil Penghargaan" and "Naib Johan" rather 
than the name of the petitioner 
Illegible photocopy of a "Trade & Industry '95 Golden Award" certificate 
Photocopy of a trophy (inscription illegible) which the petitioner claims is a "Golden Award in 
'Internaitional [sic] 3D Awards"' for his "artwork of Painting with Straw" 
Illegible photocopy of a certificate allegedly naming the petitioner a "Silver Video Awards Winner" 
Photocopy of a seal for an "Erotic Art Award" (the petitioner's name does not appear on this award) 
Photocopy of a seal for a "Featured Artist" award for "Electro Web Animation" (the petitioner's 
name does not appear on this award) 
Photocopy of an "Artist of the Month" certificate allegedly issued by the "Association of Featured 
Artist" (the petitioner's name does not appear on this award) 
In regard to item 1, we note the misspelling of the words "exhibition" and "sponsored." It is unlikely that a 
nationally recognized award for artistic excellence would have such obvious errors. 
Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are deficient in that they include illegible wording or fail to specifically name the 
petitioner. Astonishingly, item 2 bears the names of individuals other than the petitioner. We further note 
Page 5 
that item 2 was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation in accordance with the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
In regard to item 7, we note the petitioner claims that his artistic medium is "straw painting" rather than "web 
animation." 
Based on the aforementioned discrepancies, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. As 
stated previously, 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. 
There is no evidence of publicity surrounding the petitioner's awards or evidence showing that they command 
a substantial level of recognition. 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 petitioner's awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards. The 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
On June 1, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(5), the AAO requested the petitioner to 
submit the original versions of the eight items listed above. The petitioner's failure to comply with the 
AA07s request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
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. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that items 7 and 8 from the preceding criterion reflect evidence of hls 
membership in the "Association of Featured Artist." As noted previously, the petitioner's name does not 
appear on either of these certificates. Without evidence of a membership credential bearing the petitioner's 
Page 6 
name, we cannot conclude that he holds membership in this association. Further, the record includes no 
evidence of the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for the "Association of Featured 
Artist." There is no indication that admission to membership in this organization required outstanding 
achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his 
admission to membership. The petitioner has not established that he 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$eldfor which classiJication 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 earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or fiom a publication in a language that most 
of the 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 distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be an article about himself entitled "Art, Mobile style." The name and 
circulation of the publication in which this article allegedly appeared have not been provided. Further, the author 
of the article has not been identified as required by the plain wording of this criterion. 
The article states: 
FKUALA [sic] LUMPUR, Feb. 25 (Bernarna) - Why not welcome the weekend with art! Lee previews 
two collections that make Friday night an arts double header in midtown Mobile. 
You may not know [the petitioner] but you have seen his work. He is one of the straw artists, and you can 
see some of his work Friday night at the Shadow Box on South Street at 6:00 p.m. 
In the dateline, we note the misspelling of "Kuala Lumpur." We further note that the city listed in the dateline, 
Kuala Lumpur, differs fiom the city where the petitioner's art exhibition is allegedly being promoted, Mobile, 
~labama.' After further investigation, the AAO obtained a copy of the original article on the internet at 
http://www.wpmi.com. The AAO determined that the article provided by the petitioner was a fi-audulent 
submission. On June 1, 2006, the AAO provided the petitioner with a copy of the original article, and 
requested the petitioner to submit independent and objective evidence to overcome the AAO's finding that the 
article submitted by the petitioner was fraudulent. The petitioner failed to respond to the 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 he 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. 
2 
 The Shadow Box is located at 100 South Florida Street in Mobile, Alabama rather than Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 
Page 7 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted seven photocopies of what are alleged to be his artistic creations. Without further 
evidence, it cannot be determined if the works shown are those of the petitioner. Further, there is no evidence 
(such as an event program or art brochure) identifying the specific venues where the petitioner's works were 
featured. It must be stressed that an artist does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his or her 
work to be displayed or sold. We find no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's creations 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 his regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the 
display of hls work alone. For these reasons, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on November 14, 2005. The appellate submission was accompanied by a 
letter discussing his accomplishments and supporting evidence (which have been addressed in this decision). 
On the Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, however, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or 
evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, more than ten months later, the AAO 
has received nothing further. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an artist 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. For this additional reason, 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), afd. 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 
Page 8 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fraud. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted a fraudulent document in an 
effort to mislead Citizenship and Immigration Services and the AAO on elements 
material to his eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of the 
United States.