dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
'i Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. citizenship 
and ~rnrnigration 
d. 
-, 
 Services 
iknti&hg data deleted to 
prevent elcar;-;' {":-;jmante-j 
invasion ofpk:>aL;,,d privacy 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 05 03 1 50895 
 Date: JAN 2 8 2008 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed with a finding of fraud and material misrepresentation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. In the decision, the director 
noted that the petitioner did not appear t~ have worked in his area of expertise since arriving in the 
United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter indicating that he has been working as a volunteer at a travel 
agency since 2000. On April 6,2006, this office, based on several discrepancies that will be discussed 
in more detail below, requested three original documents. The AAO afforded the petitioner 12 weeks 
in wkch to respond. The petitioner did not respond. On August 2, 2007, based on additional 
discrepancies discovered between this petition and the ETA Form 9089 supporting a separate petition, 
EAC 06 088 51493, the AAO issued a notice of derogatory information in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(16)(i) and of the AAO's intent to dismiss the appeal. In response, the petitioner asserts that 
the discrepancies mentioned were due to printing errors or clerical errors and that our additional 
concerns are speculative. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not overcome the 
director's basis of denial or the concerns raised in the AAO's August 2,2007 notice. Thus, in addition 
to dismissing the appeal, we will make a formal finding of fraud. 
Inconsistencies 
In support of the petition, thk petitioner submitted a letter from of - - asserting that the petitioner worked there from 1989 through 1996 as a marketing 
executive. 
On October 22, 2005, Reliable Auto Repair of Monsek, Inc. in New York filed an application for 
alien employmht certification, ETA Fonn 9089, in the petitioner's behalf with the Department of 
Labor (DOL). The petitioner signed this form on January 26, 2006 in Section L, declaring under 
penalty of perjury that Sections J and K are true and correct. Both sections, however, are 
inconsistent with the petition now before us, also signed by the petitioner, and the evidence 
submitted in support of this petition. First, in section K, the only employment in the last three years 
and other qualifjmg experience is listed as an auto service technician at Mumbai Auto Service from 
January 2, 1995 through ~anuiry 3 1, 1997. The petitioner attested to this employment as being full- 
time, or 40 hours per week. This employment as an auto service technician conflicts in part with the 
petitioner's purported employment as a marketing executive for N.T.V. Travels Pvt. Ltd. fi-om 1989 
through 1 996. 
-, 
Page 3 
In addition, on Section J of the ETA Form 9089, the petitioner's country of citizenship and birth is 
listed as the Philippines. On Part 3 of the petition before us, however, the petitioner listed his place 
of birth as India. Finally, on Part 7 of the petition before us the petitioner listed two children born in 
South Africa in 1993 and 1995. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner resided in South 
Africa at any time. As noted by the AAO in a notice dated August 2, 2007, while the petitioner's 
lack of residence in South Africa does not preclude his having children born there, this information 
bears mention given the inconsistencies discussed above. 
In response, the petitioner asserts that the Philippines listing as his country of birth was a "clerical 
error" and that his wife resides in South Africa. He further asserts that there is no conflict between his 
experience as a marketing executive and his experience as a mechanic because "many talented people" 
like him "are multi tasking." 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. Moreover, 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. 
We note that, on the ETA Form 9089, it lists both the petitioner's country of citizenship and country of 
birth as the Philippines. The petitioner has not adequately explained how this mistake, occurring in two 
separate locations, was due to a clerical error. Moreover, the petitioner's claim in support of the current 
petition to have been a nationally acclaimed marketing executive in the travel industry in India is 
simply not consistent with his claim, in support of the petition filed by Reliable Auto Repair of 
to have worked 40 hours per week during that same time as an auto service technician. 
Finally, as stated above, the fact that the petitioner has never resided in South Afiica does not preclude 
 , 
him from having two children born there. Nevertheless, given the unresolved serious inconsistencies 
noted above, the petitioner's overall credibility is seriously diminished. Moreover, as will be discussed 
further below, the petitioner' has submitted evidence-in support of the instant petition that is highly 
suspicious. On April 6,2006, the petitioner was afforded twelve.weeks to provide the originals of these 
documents and failed to do so or otherwise respond. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(5), the failure to submit originals when requested is, by itself, sufficient grounds for denial 
or revocation of a previous approval. Nevertheless, since the director's decision was based on the 
merits of the petition, we will address those merits below. 
Extraordinary Ability 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
Page 4 
(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a marketing 
executive. 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 sustajned acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted three letters purporting to document his experience as a marketing 
executive for an exporter and two travel agencies from 1980 through 1996. On February 1,2005, the 
director issued a request for additional evidence. In this notice, the director advised the petitioner of the 
ten regulatory criteria and requested evidence that the petitioner meets at least three of them. In 
response, the petitioner submitted evidence that relates to some of the criteria. The bulk of the evidence 
submitted, however, consists of Internet material about India's tourist industry, including an Internet 
travel log by someone other than the petitioner. The petitioner is not the author of any of this material, 
nor is he mentioned by name in any of these materials. The director concluded that the evidence 
Page 5 
submitted did not sufficiently recognize the petitioner's contributions to the travel indusky in India and 
did not demonstrate that the petitioner was recently involved in the travel industry as would be 
expected of an alien who enjoys sustained acclaim in the field. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a 
letter from, the sales manager of, asserting that the petitioner has been 
volunteering at that company since 2000 and is "one of the best travel and tour specialists in the 
European - South Asian market." The criteria and a discussion of the evidence submitted follows. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an April 10, 1990 letter from I of Charisma Travels and Tours 
congratulating the petitioner on his "award recognition from Charisma Travel and Tours." Mr. 1 
indicates that there will be a "special recognition dinner." The petitioner submitted a copy of a 
photograph of himself purportedly receiving a trophy from Mr. qut the image is of poor quality. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a photograph at a podium for the "Travel Tourism Awards" that 
appears-to show the trophy being awarded in the photograph with Mr. nce again, the copy is 
of poor quality and is consistent with an altered photograph. 
The petitioner also submitted a "Diploma" from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) 
and the Universal Federation of Travel Agents Association (UFTAA) purporting to confirm the 
petitioner's successful completion of an "advanced course" for international travel consultants. Some 
of the text is far darker than other text and the "a" in "awarded" covers the 1989 wet seal while the wet 
seal covers the "p" in "Diploma." Wet seals typically are applied to a document after the printing is 
completed. While the anomalies on the diploma are minor, the anomalies in the alleged newspaper 
articles discussed below are far more obvious. As stated above, 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. Thus, 
on April 6,2006, the AAO requested the original of this document. The petitioner failed to submit the 
document. On that basis alone, the petition must be denied. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5). On August 2, 
2007, the AAO advised the petitioner of the discrepancies on the document. In response, the petitioner 
asserts that he received the diploma and that there must have been a problem with the printer. A printer, 
however, does not apply the wet seal. Moreover, this issue could have been definitively resolved by the 
submission of the original document in response to the April 6,2006 notice, to which the petitioner did 
not respond. The petitioner also submitted a second diploma dated in 1988 from IATA and UFTAA in 
recognition of passing a standard course examination. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a 1995 certificate from the India Trade Promotion Organization, 
the Tourism Office of India and the India Trade Society for "Outstanding Contribution by an Individual 
Volunteer" and a letter purportedly from Prinyanka Paresh, Assistant Minister for India's Tourism 
Office, expressing appreciation for the petitioner's "significant contribution to the Tourism and 
Hospitality Program." In support of the 1995 volunteer awara, the petitioner also submitted what