dismissed EB-1A Case: Bonsai Art

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 1) 2 2m 
EAC 05 152 52437 
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. § 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On June 7, 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 she submitted falsified documents in support 
her petition. 
The AAO's June 7, 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. 9 204.5(h)(3)(vi) calls for evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. In support of your petition, you 
submitted articles entitled "The Personal Touch," "Where to purchase soil," and "Checking for 
Moisture." Under the title of each of these articles, it states: 
 "By Ok Ja Lee." After further 
investigation, it was determined these articles were authored by another individual. The AAO was able 
to obtain the original articles at http:Nplants.articleinsider.com. In an attempt to gain an immigration 
benefit, you altered original material written by Nicholas Sayaan and misrepresented it as your own 
work. By falsely substituting your name into his articles and plagiarizing his work, 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 accomplishments of 
another individual as your own. For this reason, we cannot accord any of your other claims any 
weight. 
If you choose to contest the AAO's findings, 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. $ 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 
Page 3 
8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(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. $ 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 the aforementioned falsified articles, the petitioner has sought to 
procure a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willful misrepresentation of material facts. 
Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and 
persuasively, our finding that her articles were falsifications, 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 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 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Page 4 
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. 
tj 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. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 29, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
bonsai art specialist. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record 
reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since April 25, 1998. Given the length of 
time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than seven 
years), it is reasonable to expect her to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The 
petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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: 
1. Certificate issued by the Science and Technology Association of China and the New Publishing 
House of China in August 1997 stating that the petitioner's book Techniques on Bonsai Art won First 
Place in the Reader's Choice Awards 
2. 
Certificate issued by the "Light Industry of the People's Republic of China" on January 26, 1998 
naming the petitioner a Master Bonsai Artist 
3. Certificate issued by the Human Resources Department of Jilin Province in February 1996 naming 
the petitioner an "outstanding young artist." 
4. Certificate issued by the Government of Jilin Province in December 1997 stating that the petitioner 
won an Individual Achievement Award 
5. Certificate issued by the Government of Jilin Province in January 1996 stating that the petitioner's 
work TropicalPlants won first place at the 1 lth Annual Culture Art Festival of Jilin 
6. Certificate of Honor issued by the Government of Jilin Province in August 1995 naming the 
petitioner a "top notch young artist in Jilin." 
7. Certificate of Recognition from the National Bonsai Foundation (1997) 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (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 
Page 5 
from the foreign language into English. The translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates 
were not certified as required by the regulation. 
In regard to items 3, 4, 5, and 6, we find that these awards reflect provincial recognition rather than national 
or international recognition. 
Regarding items I through 7, 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. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, the record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has received 
any awards subsequent to January 1998. The absence of awards in recent years indicates that the petitioner's 
acclaim has not been sustained. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
On June 7, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(5), the AAO requested the petitioner to 
submit the original versions of the seven certificates listed above. The petitioner's failure to comply with the 
AAO's request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fieldfor 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. 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. 
The petitioner submitted membership certificates for the Jilin Culture Art Association, the Bonsai Art 
Association of China, and the Chinese Folk Literature and Art Association. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted documents entitled "Jilin 
Province Artist Association" and "Chinese Bonsai Association" which include general information about 
these organizations. We cannot accept this evidence, however, because the English language translations 
accompanying the documents were not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). 
Page 6 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to show that admission to membership in the aforementioned 
associations required outstanding achievement or that she was evaluated by national or international experts 
in consideration of his admission to membership. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that she meets 
this criterion. 
On June 7, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5), the AAO requested the petitioner to 
submit the original versions of the three membership certificates listed above. The petitioner's failure to 
comply with the AAO's request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles entitled "The Personal Touch," "Where to purchase soil," and "Checking for 
Moisture." After hrther investigation, the AAO determined that these articles were fraudulent submissions. On 
June 7, 2006, the AAO requested the petitioner to submit to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the AAO's findings. The petitioner failed to respond to AAO's notice. 
The petitioner also submitted what she alleges is evidence of her authorship of a book entitled Techniques on 
Bonsai Art (a photocopy of the book cover). We find that the three fraudulent articles submitted by the 
petitioner cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of this evidence. See Matter of Ho at 582, 591-92. 
Pursuant to Matter of Ho, the AAO has the discretion not to accord any weight to this evidence. The 
petitioner has not submitted independent and objecting evidence confirming her authorship of this book or 
showing the number of copies in print. On June 7, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(5), 
the AAO requested the petitioner to submit the original version of this book. The petitioner's failure to 
comply with the AAO's request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
The petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted several images of what are alleged to be her bonsai designs. Without further 
evidence, it cannot be determined if the petitioner's works are among those shown. The images of the 
petitioner's creations were not accompanied by contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or art 
brochure) indicating the specific exhibition or showcase in which they appeared. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's works 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 her regular participation in shows or 
exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the display of her work alone. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she 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. 
Page 7 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a 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. 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. 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. Ca1. 200 I), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. tj 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 fraudulent documents in an 
effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on elements material to her eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States.