dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 2 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigrat ion Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washimrton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered , you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
AJOfMYl~ r Ron Rosenberg 
r Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the 
Director, Vermont Service Center. On further review of the record, the Director, Texas Service 
Center, issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval of the petition on November 23, 
2009. In a Notice of Revocation (NOR) dated January 28, 2010, the director revoked the approval 
of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140). The petitioner appealed the matter to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). On October 4, 2011, the AAO withdrew the director's 
decision and remanded the petition for further action. The director issued a second NOIR dated 
April 17, 2012. On November 27, 2012, the director issued an NOR ultimately revoking the 
approval of the Form 1-140. The matter is again before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. The AAO will also enter a separate administrative finding of material 
misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) as 
an artist. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary 
ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international 
acclaim. The director also determined that the petitioner had misrepresented material facts by 
submitting false documents. 
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). 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. 
On appeal, counsel states: "I respectfully request that the Service's revokation [sic] be withdrawn 
and the 1-140 petition be granted." The petitioner submits various samples of his original artwork. 
The AAO agrees with counsel that the petitioner did not misrepresent the work of artist as 
his own work. As such, the director's statements in that regard are hereby withdrawn. The 
petitioner, however, has failed to overcome the remaining grounds for revocation discussed in the 
director's decision. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision to revoke the approval 
of the petition with a finding of material misrepresentation. 
I. lAW 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the 
approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the 
Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at 
the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the 
visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision 
to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is 
rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to 
the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 
(BIA 1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. !d. The approval of a visa 
petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a 
preliminary step in the visa application process. !d. at 589. The beneficiary is not, by mere 
approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. !d. 
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 into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
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. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991 ). The term "extraordinary ability" 
(b)(6)
-- -- - - -- ----- --~-----~ -"--- - ------ ----~-----~-·--~~-~-- --------~- -------------- -- --- ------------
Page4 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." ld. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will first discuss 
the material misrepresentations made by the petitioner and then review the evidence under the plain 
language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. 
II. MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION AND DEROGATORY INFORMATION 
The AAO's October 4, 2011 decision, the director's April 17, 2012 NOIR, and the director's 
November 27, 2012 NOR 
stated that the record contains numerous deficiencies and inconsistencies. 
The director and the AAO noted the following specific derogatory information: 
1. The petitioner submitted what he alleges is a book entitled The 
book includes a "Foreword" by and pages displaying copies of the petitioner's 
work. Many of the pages have separated from the binding where they were glued into the 
book. Moreover, a covering that was pasted to the front and back cover of the book has 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
neeled awav revealing the cover of another book entitled " 
accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. Thus, the petitioner has altered the cover of a book published 
by another individual to misrepresent it as his own book. 
2. The petitioner submitted an April20, 2005 letter of support allegedly issued by . 
Director, A search of the "Corporation 
and Business Entity Database" of the New York State (NYS) Department of State, Division 
of Corporations indicates that is an 
inactive business that dissolved on June 25, 2003. See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/corps/ 
bus_entity_search.html, accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. As the did not 
exist in 2005, the April 20, 2005 letter from the 
is a falsification. 
3. The petitioner submitted a June 18, 2004 letter of support allegedly issued by 
Offiee Manager, New York. The petitioner also submitted a Certfticate 
of Award "issued on the date of September 26, 2003" to him by the 
The certificate bears a raised seal stating: 
A search of the "Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the NYS 
Department of State, Division of Corporations indicates that is an 
inactive business that dissolved on June 26, 2002. See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/corps/ 
bus entity_search.html, accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. As the did not exist in 2003 and 2004, the 
September 26, 2003 Certificate of Award and the June 18, 2004 letter of support from the 
' are falsifications. 
4. An August 19, 2004 letter from counsel accompanying the petition states that the petitioner 
has "established national or international acclaim" through "specific evidence" including 
being "listed in Strathmore's Who's Who International in 2005." The petitioner's evidence 
included a November 2004 letter from the Executive Director of Strathmore's Who's Who 
congratulating the petitioner on his "acceptance and inclusion in the forthcoming 2005 
edition of Strathmore's Who's Who" and a blurred color photocopy of plaque · 
commemorating his inclusion. In September 2009, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) officer contacted Strathmore 's Who's Who to verify the preceding 
documentation submitted by the petitioner. In its September 11, 2009 response to USCIS, 
the publication confirmed the petitioner's nomination for inclusion by The 
AAO notes that Part 9, "Signature of person preparing form," of the Form I-140 is signed by 
of the who "prepared this petition" 
and who certified several English language translations contained in the record. Thus, the 
petitioner gained acceptance and inclusion in Strathmore's Who 's Who based on the 
recommendation of an employee of the law firm that represents him. Accordingly, the 
petitioner's inclusion in Strathmore's Who's Who is not indicative of "national or 
international acclaim." 
5. The etitioner submitted a November 25, 2004 "Certificate of Appointment" from the 
New York, U.S.A. A search of the 
"Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the NYS Department of State, Division of 
(b)(6)
Page6 
·······-·-----·--·· ·· -···-···--··-····--···- -·------ ·-··---· --- ··-········-···-······· ··-----
Corporations indicates that "No business entities were found" for the 
See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus entity 
search.html, accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. The petitioner failed to submit objective documentary evidence demonstrating 
the existence of this organization in New York in 2004. 
6. The etitioner submitted a March 26, 2003 "Letter of Employment" from the 
j' New York, stating the petitioner "has been 
employed" there as an "art consultant" beginning in 2003. A search of the "Corporation and 
Business Entity Database" of the NYS Department of State, Division of Corporations 
inciicates that "No husiness entities were found" for the 
See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus entity search.html, 
accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The 
petitioner failed to submit objective documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 
actually worked there and that the organization was a bona fide employer. 
7. The etitioner submitted an August 26, 2004 letter of support from the 
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" to have existed in 
2004 for the See 
http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/ corps/bus entity search.html, accessed on September 14, 2011, 
copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The petitioner failed to submit objective 
documentary evidence demonstrating the association's operations at the preceding address 
in 2004. 
8. The petitioner submitted a March 1, 2002 " 
from 
the . 
stating: "You are one of the award recipients for the 
_ ... We have received more than 1000 pieces works [sic] from a I over the 
world, such as the United States, Canada , France, Italy, China, Japan, etc." In addition, 
the petitioner submitted an "Outstanding Award" certificate dated May 7, 2002, and 
program material reflecting that the exhibition and award ceremony occurred in May 
2002. The petitioner's evidence also included a March 26, 2005 letter from 
Co-Chairman of the -
stating that the petitioner competed 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). The petitioner 
failed to provide objective documentary evidence from the 
verifying his receipt of the preceding "Outstanding A ward" 
certificate. 
With regard to item 1, counsel states: "Service ... alleged that a cover ofthe petitioner's work 
was pasted to a book entitled Again, 
the works on this website are totally irrelevant to the petitioner's." The AAO agrees with 
counsel that the art work on the preceding website is not relevant to any works of art submitted 
by the petitioner. In addition, USCIS is not asserting that the inner content of the book 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
is the work of Instead, the derogatory information noted by both the 
director and the AAO is that while the petitioner submitted what he alleges is his book entitled 
the book was actually constructed using the cover of another book entitled 
_,___ _ The director specifically noted that a cover made by the petitioner 
"was pasted onto the original book which is entitled The 
petitioner's appellate submission includes an "Affidavit" dated "12/12, 20012" [sic] stating: 
"USCIS's allegation that a cover of my work was pasted onto the original book which is entitled 
was false." The petitioner, however, has failed to submit any new evidence, or 
point to specific evidence in the record, that overcomes the director's finding. The petitioner's 
assertion does not overcome the director's determination that the petitioner altered the cover of a 
book published by another individual to create what the petitioner alleges is his own book 
entitled . As the record includes evidence showing that a book cover 
entitled was pasted onto the book cover of the AAO 
must affirm the director's finding that the petitioner has made a material misrepresentation. 
In regard to items 2 and 3, the petitioner submitted a May 15, 2012 letter from counsel in 
response to the director's NOIR that states: 
Service also mentioned two recommendation letters from 
(dated 4/20/05), (dated 6/18/04). According to 
Service's investigation, the two entities were inactive and dissolved prior to the dates of 
letters. Please kindly be advised that when petitioner participated at a program I received 
a letter, he did the have [sic] the ability to check if that organization was technically 
active. The petitioner is a painter from China. He did not speak English, without much 
knowledge of American systems. It was virtually impossible at that time, when 
petitioner, who was a newcomer, participated at events, won recognition from hosts, and 
then ask if they were legally active. It was completely out of his comprehension to do so. 
We sincerely apologize for the irregularities which have caused doubts. Kindly forgive 
the honest oversights and affirm the approval accordingly. 
In response to the NOIR, counsel asserted that the petitioner "participated at events" and "won 
recognition from hosts," but as indicated by the director and by the AAO (items 2 and 3), the 
did not exist in 2005 and the 
did not exist in 2003 and 2004. Without documentary evidence to support his claims, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner has failed to submit any independent and 
objective evidence to overcome the director's findings or to demonstrate the existence of the 
above organizations when the two letters of support and Certificate of Award were issued. 
Further, the affidavit submitted by the petitioner on aJ:>peal does not contest the director's 
findings regarding the documents from the and the 
Accordingly, AAO must conclude that the April 20, 2005 letter of support 
allegedly issued by , the June 18, 2004letter of support allegedly issued by 
and the September 26, 2003 Certificate of Award are falsifications. 
(b)(6)
·· ··· ··-··-- --- - - ··-···- ········--- .. ····--· ···· --------------- ---------··-····· ···----------
Page 8 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[W]ith regard to irregularities of some letters which were dated prior to the establishment 
of entities or after they became inactive. Petitioner admits irregularities and feels very 
sorry. He regrets that the things like this happened. However, this is due to honest 
mistakes not intentional frauds. 
Regarding the material misrepresentations outlined in items 1 - 3 above, the AAO notes 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." By submitting the altered book of 
cover of falsified letters of support, and a false September 26, 2003 Certificate of 
Award from the the petitioner has made willful material misrepresentations. 
With regard to item 4, counsel states: "It is true that my employee recommended petitioner to 
the Strathmore for consideration. However, Strathmore independently interviewed the petitioner 
and decided if he is qualified for inclusion." The petitioner, however, failed to submit 
documentary evidence from Strathmore's Who's Who demonstrating that he was "independently 
interviewed" 
for inclusion in the publication. As previously discussed, the unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez~Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
In regard to item 5 (the November 25, 2004 "Certificate of Appointment" from the 
the petitioner's appellate submission does not include 
objective documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of this organization in New York in 
2004. 
With regard to item 6 (the March 26, 2003 "Letter of Employment" from the 
stating the petitioner "has been employed" there as an "art 
consultant" beginning in 2003), the petitioner's response to the director's NOIR included an 
October 8, 2003 document from the 
stating "consent is hereby given to the filing of the annexed certificate of incorporation ot 
a not-for-profit 
corporation." Counsel points out that was 
registered with the New York State Education Department, not the Division of Corporations. 
ReP"ardless. the October 8, 2003 document from the 
submitted in response to the director's NOIR fails to demonstrate that the 
existed on March 26, 2003, or that the petitioner was 
actually employed by the organization in early 2003. 
Regarding item 7 (the August 26, 2004 letter of support from the 
~ _ , the petitioner failed to submit objective documentary evidence demonstrating 
the association's operations at in 2004. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
In regard to item 8, as the March 26, 2005 letter from 
the director's NOIR specifically instructed the petitioner to 
evidence from the 
contained inconsistencies, 
submit "objective documentary 
to verify [the 
In response, the petitioner 
a document 
-, and a second letter from 
petitioner's] actual receipt of the 'Outstanding Award' certificate." 
submitted a document entitled 
entitled -
n::~terl Ma_v ()_ 2012. The two documents entitled " 
do not 
etitioner' s receipt of an "Outstanding A wardn certlttcate. 1 ne -
document states that the judges "select 539 pieces for awards." In 
addition, the document contains spelling, capitalization, and grammatical errors and inconsistent 
font sizes. For instance, in the "Prizes" section, the document states: "Total awards will be the 
flowings [sic]" and in 
the "Schedule" section, the document states: "Award Ceremony (At The 
) will be noticed." The submitted documents 
indicate that the award 
ceremony was "held at the and that works were submitted to the 
The May 6, 2012 letter from 
and states: 
bears an address of 
We write this letter to confirm that [the petitioner] participated in the 
co-sponsored by the _ 
and won the outstanding prize. A total of 8700 participants, 1000 participants 
won various awards. 
This international art event was started from the May 2001 and had an awards ceremony 
in May 2002. Per requested by [the petitioner], we issued a recommendation letter on 
behalf of him on March 26, 2005. 
[Emphasis added.] The preceding letter from states that "1000 participants won 
various awards," but document states that the 
judges "select 539 pieces for awards." Once again, the information provided in the letter from 
contradicts other documentation in the record. 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. Regardless, the director's NOJR soecificallv requested the petitioner to submit 
"objective documentary evidence from the 
veri(vin!! his receipt of the preceding 'Outstandin!! Award' certificate." The May 6, 2012 
letter from however, is not from the 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14) provides: "Failure to submit requested 
evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the application 
(b)(6)
• • - . L - ---- - L ~ -·••-••• - · ------ ·-----···- - · •••••• •• • • ••••• ••-• - •-·•--•- -----· ----- ---· 
Page 10 
or petition." Based on the petitioner's failure to submit the requested evidence in response to the 
director's NOIR, this petition cannot be approved. 
With regard to the above derogatory information outlined in items 1 - 8, the petitioner has failed 
to resolve the inconsistencies with independent and objective evidence. As previously discussed, 
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. /d. at 591. Furthermore, as the petitioner failed to provide 
independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, the director's findings 
regarding items 1 - 3, the AAO affirms the director's finding of willful material 
misrepresentation. 
Section 204(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
Mter 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, US CIS 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 etitioner has made material misrepresentations by 
submitting a falsified book cover entitled false letters of support 
purportedly issued by _ and 
and a false September 26, 2003 Certificate of Award from 
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 
I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the misrepresentation must be one 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
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 a book entitled letters of support 
purportedly issued by and a September 26, 2003 Certificate of Award 
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 a falsified book cover, falsified letters of support, and a false 
Certificate of Award from dissolved businesses in support of the Form I-140 petition constitutes 
false representations to a government official. 
Second, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully made the misrepresentations. 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 documents 
submitted by the petitioner relate to his eligibility for the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (viii). Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the misrepresentations 
were material to the petitioner's eligibility. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting false documents, 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, the director's finding that he submitted falsified documentation, the AAO 
affirms the director's determination that the petitioner has willfully misrepresented a material 
(b)(6)
-- . - -- -- -·-·--·-·· ··· ·····- --- -- ------- - -······ ·- ·-······· · ··-··· ·· --------
Page 12 
fact. This finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be considered m any future 
proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 2 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)3 
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 June 29, 1993 certificate from the . 
stating that he "was selected as 1992 Outstanding Professional." The 
petitioner also submitted an August 22, 2004 letter from Art Professor, Central 
stating that the preceding award "honors, nationwide, 1 00 most 
distinguished professionals in the fields of fine arts, science, education, and literature." There is 
no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's award is equivalent to a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The netitioner submitted 1999 "Silver Pr"ze" certificate from the 
The petitioner also submitted an October 27. 1999 
letter from New York City Council Member . to the 
congratulating the Center for its competition in which "eleven hundred pieces of art have been 
selected for awards." The orecedim! statement from contradicts the June 18, 2004 
letter of support from stating that the 
review team "selected 5 golden prize winners, 10 silver prize [sic] and 100 bronze 
prizes winners [sic)." As previously discussed, the petitioner also submitted a "Certificate of 
A ward" issued to him bv the on September 26, 2003. The certificate bears a 
raised seal stating: ~ A search of the 
"Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the NYS Department of State, Division of 
Corporations indicates that is an inactive business that dissolved on June 26, 
2002. See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/corps/ bus entity search.html, accessed on September 14, 
2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. As the did not exist in 
2003 and 2004, the September 26, 2003 Certificate of Award and the June 18, 2004letter of support 
from _ discussing the 1999 are 
falsifications. 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 
2 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 l&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). Instead, the alien may be found imidmissible 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) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a) and 1255(a). 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
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. 
The netitioner submitted a December 29. 2000 "Certificate of Award" stating that his work won 
a in Hong Kong, but the English language 
translation accompanying his award certificate was not certified by the translator as required by 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 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. ld. The petitioner also submitted 
a July 19, 2005 letter from Executive Director, 
stating that the petitioner's painting won the "Gold Award which is the highest prize" in 
the The preceding letter from does not include an address, 
a telephone number, or any other information through which she can be contacted. The 
director's November 23, 2009 NOIR stated that the petitioner submitted an award from the 
in Hong Kong from December 12-28, 2000, but that the petitioner 
has not left the United States since his entry in 1995. The petitioner responded to the NOIR by 
submitting a December 14, 2009 affidavit stating that he displayed his work at the preceding 
exhibition, but "did not have to personally appear at the exhibition." The record, however, does 
not include documentary evidence from the exhibition's organizers to support the petitioner's 
assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitoner submitted a March 1, 2002" 
from the ~ stating: "You 
are one of the award recipients for the . . . 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 "Outstanding 
Award" certificate dated May 7, 2002, and program material reflecting that the exhibition and 
award ceremony occurred in May 2002. The petitioner's evidence also included a March 26, 
2005 letter from Co-Chairman of the 
stating that the petitioner 
competed 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 previously discussed, the 
director's NOIR specifically requested the petitioner to submit "objective documentary evidence 
from the _ verifying his receipt of the 
preceding 'Outstanding Award' certificate." The May 6, 2012 letter from submitted in 
response to the director's NOIR contained additional conflicting information and was not issued 
from the · · 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 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
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. 
/d. at 591. 
The petitioner submitted an August 26, 2004 letter of support from 
Director of the 
Executive 
J' stating: has selected one recipient each year for the Outstanding life 
Time [sic] Achievement Award .... In 1995, [the petitioner] was the winner ofthis grand award." 
Rather than submitting primary evidence of his 1995 Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award, 
the petitioner instead submitted a letter issued almost ten years later mentioning his receipt of the 
award. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only 
where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. /d. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner 
must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the 
reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(ii). The August 26, 2004 letter from does not comply with the 
preceding regulatory requirements. Further, as previously discussed, 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" to have existed in 2004 for the 
accessed on 
September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 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 591. 
With regard to the petitioner's 1992 Outstanding Professional award from the 
1999 Silver Prize from the 
Competition, 2003 Certificate of Award from the 2000 Golden 
Award from the Exhibition, 2002 "Outstanding A ward" from the 
Competition, and 1995 Outstanding Lifetime Achievement 
Award from the 
aside from the aforementioned deficiencies, the petitioner 
did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his awards. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations 
and therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
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 or fields. 
In his August 19, 2004 letter accompanying the petition, counsel asserts that the petitioner is a 
mP.mher of the 
Without documentary evidence to support 
the claim, the assertions of counsel will not saust'y the petitioner's burden of proof. As 
previously discussed, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter 
of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence 
required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of 
primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, there 
is no documentary evidence (such as bylaws, rules of admission, or official membership criteria) 
showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory 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 distribution. 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.4 
The petitioner submitted a January 30, 1995 article about him i but the author of 
the article was not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, the petitioner submits information about from the 
online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The petitioner has not established that and 
ue one-in-the-same. Moreover, with regard to information from Wikipedia, there 
are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.5 
4 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. 
5 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8
1
h Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the AAO 
will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. Thus, the petitioner has 
failed to submit evidence demonstrating that is a form of major media. 
The oetitioner submitted a partial English language translation of an April 5, 2005 article in 
but the translation was not a full translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the article was not identified and there is no documentary 
evidence showing that qualifies as a form of major media. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a November 2004 letter from the Executive 
Director of Strathmore's Who's Who congratulating the petitioner on his "acceptance and inclusion 
in the forthcoming 2005 edition of Strathmore's Who's Who" and a blurred color photocopy of 
plaque commemorating his inclusion. In September 2009, a USCIS officer contacted Strathmore's 
Who 's Who to verify the preceding documentation submitted by the petitioner. In its September 11, 
2009 response to USCIS, the publication confirmed the petitioner's nomination for inclusion by 
The AAO notes that Part 9, "Signature of person preparing form," of the Form 1-
140 is signed by of the who "prepared this 
petition" and who certified several English language translations contained in the 
record. Thus, the 
petitioner gained acceptance and inclusion in Strathmore 's Who 's Who based on the 
recommendation of an employee of the law firm that represents him. Regardless, the petitioner 
failed to submit evidence of the published material about him in the 2005 edition of Strathmore's 
Who's Who including the author of the material. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence 
required by the regulation. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of 
primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Moreover, 
there is no documentary evidence showing that this expansive biographical registry listing of 
thousands of individuals constitutes published material about the petitioner in a form of major 
media. The company heavily promotes the sale of volumes to those invited to submit biographies, 
demonstrating that each volume is similar to a vanity press. A vanity press is not major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a 
common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by 
people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information .... 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given 
article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/vviki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on May 6, 2013, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a November 25, 2004 "Certificate of Appointment" from the 
stating that he "has been appointed to be the Member of the 
Judge Committee of the since the date of 
November 25, 2004." The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's participation ... as a judge of the work of others." [Emphasis added.] 
While the petitioner may have been appointed to the judging committee, there is no documentary 
evidence of his actual participation as a judge. For instance, there is no documentary evidence 
showing the specific work judged by the petitioner and the names of those he evaluated. Further, 
as previously discussed, 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 See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/ 
corps/bus entity search.html, accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 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. !d. at 591. 
The petitioner submitted a partial English language translation of a page from a 1992 issue of 
identifying the petitioner as one of 22 editorial board members, but the translation 
was not a full translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the 
AAO cannot ignore that the petitioner is a painter. The petitioner failed to establish that 
is in the same or an allied field of specialization. There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's editorial position related to judging visual artists. 
The January 30, 1995 article about the petitioner in 
art design, light design and artistic figure design for the 
states that he directed "stage 
" Counsel 
asserts that the petitioner's work for the constitutes the petitioner's 
participation as judge of the work of others in his field. The petitioner also submitted a March 26, 
2003 "Letter of Employment" from the ' 
stating the petitioner "has been employed" there as an "art consultant" beginning in 2003. The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge of the work of others." Working as an artistic designer or as an art consultant does not 
equate to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. The phrase "a judge" implies 
a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include routine employment duties 
or Consultancy services. There is no documentary evidence showing the specific work judged by 
the petitioner and the names of those he evaluated. Further, as previously discussed, 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 ". 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
See http:ijwww.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus entity search.html, 
accessed on September 14, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Doubt cast on any aspect ofthe 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. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that his work has purportedly been displayed 
at artistic exhibitions. However, the aforementioned inconsistencies in the record raise serious 
questions regarding the reliability of the petitioner's evidence. 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Without reliable objective evidence documenting his exhibitions, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In his August 19, 2004 letter accompanying the petition, counsel asserts that the petitioner "has 
served as founder and director of which is a major art organization that 
has outstanding reputation." Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions 
of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. As previously discussed, the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. at 506. There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner performed in a 
leading or critical role for or that the organization has a distinguished 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a March 26, 2003 "Letter of Employment" from the 
stating the petitioner "has been employed" there as an "art 
consultant" beginning in 2003. As previously discussed, the October 8, 2003 document from the 
submitted in res onse to the director's 
NOIR fails to demonstrate that the existed 
on March 26, 2003, or that the petitioner was actually employed by the organization in early 2003. 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role 
for the or that the organization has a 
distinguished reputation. 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination.6 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
/d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The 
decision of the director to revoke the approval of the petition with a finding of willful material 
misrepresentation is affirmed. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The burden remains with the petitioner in revocation proceedings to 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter of Cheung, 12 
I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968); Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452 n.1; and Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 589. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed with a separate finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
6 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(aX1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
l . ,., ,?, . !'f .. ; .J::o ··'' '"' .. .. 
Page 20 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted false 
documents in an effort to mislead USCIS on elements material to his 
eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of the 
United States.