dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizen ship and Immi gration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachu setts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE : SEP 2 0 Z013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
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: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 day s of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
.AJDtttdn6t/ 
(\Ron Rosenberg 
~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (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 employment-based immigrant 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 alien 
of extraordinary ability in business . The director determined that the petitioner had not met the 
requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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)(l)(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. The director determined that the petitioner had not met any of the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available .. . to qualified inunigrants 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 Inunigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Inunigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that 
Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking inunigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.P.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. Cowt 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.P.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 fmth 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 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. /d. 
II. MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION AND DEROGATORY INFORMATION 
On June 27, 2013, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO issued a 
notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information regarding documentation that he submitted 
in support of the petition. The notice specifically observed that the petitioner signed the Form I-140, 
thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are 
all true and correct." The AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5) calls for "clear evidence that the alien is coming to 
the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." In support of your petition, you 
1 Specifically , the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirement s 
beyond those set forth in the regulation s at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(vi) . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
submitted a "Contract Worker Agreement" that you executed with 
on May 13, 2005. The contract 
reflected a term of employment "commencing June 1, 2005 and ending May 31, 2006." A 
search of the "Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the NYS rNew York State] 
Department of State, Division of Corporations indicates that was 
initially registered as a business on April 17, 2007? Accordingly, you claim to have entered 
into a work contract with the company more than 23 months prior to the formal existence of 
the company. Without independent and objective evidence demonstrating that 
existed and operated as a business entity from May 13, 2005 to 
May 31, 2006, it appears that you misrepresented your employment with that company. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 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 the following books that you claimed to 
have authored: 
1. Book entitled 
See 
that sh<?ws ISBN (International Standard Book Number) 
This book was actually authored by 
accessed on June 20, 2013, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached 
to this notice; 
2. Book entitled that shows ISBN and ISBN 
This book was actua ly authored by See 
accessed on June 20, 2013, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached 
to this notice; 
3. Book entitled .hat shows ISBN and 
ISBN . Th1s book was actually authored by See 
accessed on June 20, 2013, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached 
to this notice; 
4. Book entitled that shows ISBN 
This book was actually authored by See 
accessed on June 20, 2013, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached 
to this notice; 
See 
accessed on June 21,2013, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding . 
3 The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is a number that uniquely identifies books and book-like products 
published internationally. See http://www . isbn.org/standards/home/i sbn/us!isbnga.a sp, accessed on June 20, 2013, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
5. Book entitled that shows ISBN 
See This book was actually authored by 
accessed on June 20, 2013, copy incorporated into the record ot proceedmg and attached 
to this notice ; and 
6. Book entitled that shows ISBN 
This book was actually authored by 
accessed on June 
incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to this notice. 
See 
20, 2013, copy 
By falsely claiming authorship of the above books, it appears you have sought to obtain a 
visa by willful misrepre sentation of a material fact. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencie s 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. at 591. 
* * * 
By filing the instant petitiOn and making false claims regarding your authorship and 
employment , you have sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 33 days in which 
to respond to the AAO 's notice. The petitioner failed to respond to the notice. With regard to the 
aforementioned derogatory information , the petitioner has failed to resolve the inconsistencie s with 
independent and objective evidence. As the petitioner failed to provide independent and objective 
evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, the derogatory information, it is concluded that the 
petitioner has sought to obtain a visa by willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Section 204(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
After an investigation of the facts in each case . . . the [Secretary of Homeland Security] 
shall, if he determines that the facts s tated 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 petitioner has made material misrepresentations regarding his 
employment and authorship. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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 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). 
According} y, 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); Matt er of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter of Kai Hing 
Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
First, the petitioner made false claims regarding his previous employment and his authorship of six 
books. 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 (April30, 1991). Here, the petitioner's submi ssion of a "Contract 
Worker Agreement" executed with more than 23 months prior to the 
company's formal existence and of six books falsely identifying him as the author in support of the 
Form I-140 petition constitutes false representations to a government official. 
Second, the petitioner willfully made the misrepresentations. The petitioner signed the Form 1-140 
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 specificall y, the signatur e portion of the Form 1-140, at part 8, requires the petitioner to make 
the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of petjury 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, it must be concluded 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. In the present matter, the misrepresentations made by the 
petitioner relate to his eligibility for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the misrepresentations 
were material to the petitioner' s eligibility. 
By filing the instant petition and making false claims regarding his authorship and employment, 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 fact. This finding of willful material misrepresentation shall be considered 
in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue.
4 
The remaining documentation and the director's bases of denial will be discussed below. The AAO 
notes that the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to overcome the 
derogatory information discussed above seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the 
remaining documentation. As previously noted, 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Regardle ss, the AAO will address the 
director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
For the reasons discussed below, the director's decision denying the petition will be upheld . 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 5 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recogni zed 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims found to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO) . Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that 
he meets this regulatory criterion. 
4 
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 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA J 959). Instead, the alien may be found inadmissible 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) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a) and 1255(a). 
5 The petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discu ssed in this decisi on. 
Therefore, no determination has been made regarding whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of evidence . 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assoczatzons in the field for which 
classifi cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields . 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The issue, therefore, is considered to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. 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. 
Although the petitioner submitted evidence for this regulatory criterion, the director erroneously found 
that no evidence had been submitted. On appeal, as will be discussed, the AAO has reviewed the 
evidence and concurs with the ultimate determination of the director that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for this criterion. 
In response to the director's re uest for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted a March 25, 2006 
article in .. -An Interview with [the petitioner]," but 
the English language translation accompanying the article was not a full translation as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.P.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 . !d. In addition, there is no circulation evidence showing 
that qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a March 28, 2006 mticle in 
but the English language translation accompanying the article 
was not a full translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3) . Further, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that ·is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a May 8, 2003 article purportedly published in BeUing Daily Newspaper and 
entitled but the English 
language translation accompanying the article was not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R . § 103.2(b)(3). In addition, the English language translation did not identify 
the author of the article. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Beijing Daily Newspaper 
qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article purportedly published in China National Newspaper and entitled 
_ but the English language 
translation accompanying the article was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the date and author of the article were not identified as required 
by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that China National Newspaper is a form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
Although the petitioner claimed "major contributions to his field of endeavor," the director did not 
discuss the petitioner's claim in the denial. The petitioner's response to the director's RFE stated: 
The petitioner, due to his significant contributions, has won a number of major awards including 
---·- . 
This together with his extensive authorship including 
many books and professional articles illustrates his major contributions to his field of endeavor. 
W:ith regard to the the petitioner 
has failed to submit documentary evidence showing that the contributions for which he received 
recognition rise to the level of original business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field. 6The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field ." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it 
rises to the level of original business-related contributions "of major significance in the field." The 
phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus , it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
Regarding the petitioner's claim of "extensive authorship including many books and professional 
articles," there is no documentary evidence showing that his publications are frequently cited by 
independent scholars, have significantly influenced business practices in the field, or otherwise 
qualify as original contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, the petitioner failed 
to submit independent and objective evidence to overcome the finding that he falsely claimed 
authorship of six books. Once again, 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. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
6 The director determined that none of the petitioner's awards qualified as nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor and the petitioner did not contest that finding on appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Evidence of the alien's author ship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. In addition , the AAO issued a notice of derogatory information to the 
petitioner i ndicating that he falsely claimed authorship of six books . The petitioner failed to respond 
to the AAO's notice. The petitioner does not contest the findings of the director and the AAO for 
this criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore , the issue of the petitioner's eligibility for the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is considered to be abandoned . Sepulveda, 401 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov , 2011 WL 4711885 , at *9. Accordingly , the petitioner has not established 
that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
Although the petitioner submitted evidence for this regulatory criterion, the director found that no 
evidence had been submitted . On appeal, as will be discussed, the AAO has reviewed the evidence and 
concurs with the ultimate determination of the director that the petitioner has not established eligibility 
for this criterion. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a March 2006 letter purportedly issued by 
invited [the petitioner] to conduct environmental survey and Fengshui evaluation and paid [the 
petitioner] 68,000 RMB for his service." The petitioner failed to submit primary evidence documenting 
this claimed remuneration. Absent evidence that primary and secondary documents are either not available or 
nonexistent, this letter cannot be relied upon as evidence. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(2). 
The petitioner also submitted a January 2005 "Fee Chart for Architecture Fengshui Evaluation, " 
purportedly prepared by _ 
, showing the rates that Fengshui Masters charge in China. The letter from 
and the fee chart from do not include an address, a telephone number, or 
any other information through which those individuals can be contacted. Again, 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
In addition , the record lacks documentary evidence regarding the Chinese Association of 
Architecture Fengshui to demonstrate that its Fee Chart is a reliable basis for comparison in 
demonstrating that the petitioner received "significantly high remuneration" for his services relative 
to others in the field. The petitioner must submit evidence showing that he has earned sign?ficantly 
high remuneration in relation to others in his field, not simply a rate of pay that is above the standard 
or basic rate for his occupation. See Matter of Price , 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) 
(considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skoko s v. U.S. 
Dept. of Hom eland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary 
information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer ' s salary versus other NHL 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
enforcers); Muni v. INS , 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
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. CONTINUING WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTISE IN THE UNITED STATES 
Beyond the decision of the director, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii) ; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(5) . Such evidence may include letter( s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the petitioner detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United States. !d. 
On the Form 1-140, under Part 6, "Basic information about the proposed employment," the petitioner 
failed to provide a specific address where he will work in the United States. As previously 
discussed, the petitioner submitted a "Contract Worker Agreement" with 
- · ~ ~ - - ~ _ .... - ~ .. 1 dated May 13, 2005. The contract reflected a term of 
employment "commencing June 1, 2005 and ending May 31, 2006." 
According to the "Corporation and Business Entity Database" of the NYS Department of State, 
- -- - was initially registered as a 
business on April 17, 2007. The petitioner's work contract with ' 
was executed more than 23 months prior to the formal existence of the company. Once again, 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 submit s competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. Without independent and objective evidence demonstrating that 
____ . existed and operated as a business entity from May 13, 2005 to May 
31, 2006, it must be concluded that the petitioner misrepresented his employment with that 
company. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted "clear evidence" that he will continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). 
V. 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
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.F.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. 7 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 eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The AAO may deny an application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of 
the law 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), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, at 145 (noting that the AAO 
conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: 
FURTHER ORDER: 
The appeal is dismissed with a separate finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly misled USCIS on elements 
material to his eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws 
of the United States. 
7 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 jmisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office that 
made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . See also section 103(a)( 1) 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. § l03.l(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).