dismissed EB-1A Case: Calligraphy

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof Ilomeland Security
U.s. CitizenshipandImmiuraüonservices
Adminis1rativeAppeals(Xtice (AM))
20 Massachusens Ave.. N.¼.. MS 2090
washington,DC 2052W2090
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
AUG092011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(hj(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
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 reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thank you,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alien of extraordinaryability" in theartsasacalligraphyartist,
pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).
Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor internationalacclaim
necessarytoqualifyfor classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The implementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthat an aliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibility requirements.
Thepetitioner'sprioritydateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateis February23,2011. On March8,
2011, the director served the petitioner with a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receiving the
petitioner'sresponseto the RFE,the directorissuedher decisionon May 5, 2011 On appeal,the
petitionersubmitsa brief with new documentaryevidence. For thereasonsdiscussedbelow, theAAO
upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnot establishedhiseligibility for the
classificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienisdescribedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) thealien'sentryinto theUnitedStateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmall percentagewho haverisento thevery top of the field of cadeavor. Id.;
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's sustained
acclaimandthe recognitionof his or herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe established
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
through the submissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion) With respectto the criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improper understandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(which theAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failed to submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof three types of evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination. In this matter,theAAO will review theevidenceunder
theplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid not submitqualifying
evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyond 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).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. TranslatedEvidence
"Petitionersand applicantsfor immigration benefits are requiredby regulation to provide certified
English translations of any foreign language documents they submit." Matter of Nevarez,
15I&NDec.550, 551 (BIA 1976) (citing 8C.F.R. §103.2(b), now promulgatedat 8C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3))whichstates:"Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCISshallbe
accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhich the translatorhascertified ascompleteand
accurate,and by the translator'scertification that be or sheis competentto translatefrom the foreign
languageinto English." The languageutilized within the regulation implicitly precludesa single
certificationthatvalidatesseveraltranslatedformsof evidenceunlessthecertificationspecificallylists
thetranslateddocuments.Withouta singletranslator'scertificationfor eachforeignlanguageformof
evidence,or atranslator'scertificationspecificallylisting thedocumentsit is validating.thecertification
cannotbe regardedto be certifying any specificform of evidence. The final determinationof whether
evidencemeetstheplain languagerequirementsof a regulationlies with USCIS. SeeMatter of Caron
International,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r 1988)(findingthattheappropriateentity to determine
eligibility isUSCIS).
While not addressedby the directorin her decision,throughoutthe recordof proceedingthe petitioner
submitted numerous translationsthat were not each accompaniedby a certified translation in
accordancewith theregulation. Insteadat thetime hefiled theinitial petition,the etitioner _rovideda
single,blanketcertificationfor all of theforeignlanguagedocumentssignedby thatdoes
not identify the specifictranslationsto which it pertains. As notedabove,the regulationdoesnot
contamanyprovisionthat allowsfor sucha blankettranslationcertificate. The submissionof a single
translationcertificationthat doesnot identify the documentor documentsit purportedlyaccompanies,
doesnot meettherequirementsof theregulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).In r onseto theRFEthe
petitioner submittedan additional blanket translationcertificate signed by Again, this
certificationis insufficienttomeettheregulatoryrequirementsrelatedtodocumentsprovidedto USCIS
in a foreign language. The AAO would not havedeemedthe director to haveerredby putting the
petitioneron noticethatshewasrejectingthedeficienttranslationswithin theRFE. Consequently,the
foreign languagedocumentsaccompaniedby these deficient translationshave no evidentiary or
probativevalue. The petitionerdid providesomeforeignlanguagedocumentsderiving from websites
thatalsoprovidetheEnglishversionof whatappearsto bethesamecontent.Thisformof evidenceis
theonly foreignkmguagedocumentationin therecordthatis acceptableundertheregulation.
B. Standardof Proof
Counsel'sappellatebriefindicatedthatinsteadof applyingthepreponderanceof theevidencestandard
of proof,thedirectorappliedthehigherstandardof theclearandconvincingevidencestandard.The
recorddoesnot supportcounsel'sassertionthatthedirectorheldthepetitioner'sevidenceto anelevated
standardbeyondthatwhichis requiredby mostadministrativeimmigrationcases;thepreponderanceof
theevidencestandardof proof. Themostrecentprecedentdecisionrelatedto thepreponderanceof the
Page5
evidencestandardof proofis Matterof Chawathe,25I&N Dec.369(AAO 2010). This decision,and
this standard,focuseson the factualnatureof a claim; not whethera claim satisfiesa regulatory
requirement.Id. at 376. Thepreponderanceof theevidencestandarddoesnot precludeUSCISfrom
evaluatingtheevidence.The truth is to be determinednot by thequantityof evidencealonebut by its
quality. Id. TheChawathedecisionalsostated:
[T]he "preponderanceof the evidence" standarddoes not relieve the petitioner or
applicantfromsatisfyingthebasicevidentiaryrequirementssetby regulation.Thereare
no regulations relating to a corporation's eligibility as an "American lirm or
corporation" under section 316(b) of the Act. Had the regulationsrequired specific
evidence,theapplicantwouldhavebeenrequiredto submitthatevidence.Cf. 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(2006) (requiring that specific objective evidencebe submittedto
demonstrateeligibility asanalienof extraordinaryability).
25 I&N Dec. at 375 n.7. The final determinationof whetherthe evidencemeetsthe plain language
requirementsof aregulationlieswith USCIS,notwith counsel.SeeMatterof CaronInternationaL19
I&N Dec.791.795(Comm'r1988)(findingthattheappropriateentitytodetermineeligibility is USCIS
in a scenariowherebyanadvisoryopinionor statementis notconsistentwith otherinformationthatis
partof therecord).Ultimately,thetruthis to bedeterminednotby thequantityof evidencealonebut
by its quality. Matterof Chawathe,25 I&N Dec.at 376citingMatterof E-M- 20I&N Dec.77, 80
(Comm'r1989).TheChawathedecisionfurtherstates:
Evenif the director hassomedoubt asto the truth, if the petitioner submitsrelevant,
probative,andcredibleevidencethat leadsthe directorto believethat the claim is
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicantor petitioner hassatisfiedthe
standardof proof. SeeINS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,480 U.S.421,431 (1987) (discussing
"more likely thannot" asa greaterthan50%chanceof anoccurrencetaking place).If
the director can articulatea material doubt, it is appropriatefor the director to either
requestadditionalevidenceor, if thatdoubtleadsthedirectorto believethat theclaim
is probablynot true,denytheapplicationor petition.
Id. As thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerhadnot submittedrelevantandprobativeevidence
satisfying the regulatory requirements,the AAO concludesthat the director did not violate the
appropriatestandardof proof. According to this analysis,the AAO affirms the director's ultimate
conclusionthattheevidencedoesnotestablishthepetitioner'seligibility.
Page6
C. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield ofendeavor.
This criterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. Accordingto theplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),theevidencemustestablishthatthealienbethe
recipientof the prizesor the awards(in the plural). The clear regulatorylanguagerequiresthat the
prizesor the awardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized.The plain languageof the regulation
alsorequiresthepetitionerto submitevidencethateachprizeor awardis onefor excellencein thefield
of endeavorrather than simply for participatingin or contributing to an event or to a group. The
petitionermustsatisfyall of theseelementsto meettheplain languagerequirementsof this criterion.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailed to meetthe requirementsof this criterion. Several
formsof evidencethatthepetitionerprovidedrelatedto thiscriterionarein a foreignlanguageandthe
accompanyingtranslationsare deficient as each is not certified in accordancewith 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3).Theonly acceptableevidenceis in theform of websiteprintoutswherebythewebsite
itself provideda foreignlanguageversionin additionto the Englishlanguageversionof thewebpage's
content. However,thesewebsite printouts only contain information related to the respective
organizationratherthandemonstratingthatthepetitionerwastherecipientof oneof theclaimedawards
underthis criterion. As such,thepetitionerhasfailed to providesufficientevidenceto satisfytheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion. On appeal,counselopines:
Thefactof winning [an] award,whethernationalor regional,itself hasdemonstratedthe
consensusof differentjudgesor viewersin acknowledgingtheexcellenceof thequality
and value of the artwork. This renders[the petitioner's] other awardsrelevantand
significantin provinghis excellencein his field, especiallytheregionalawardsarein
Beijingmetropolitanareawhichhavegatheredmostof Chinesetraditionalarts.
Counsel'sanalysisignoresthe explicit regulatoryrequirementthat all qualifying prizesor awardsbe
nationallyor internationallyrecognized,and thereforeis not persuasive.Just as USCISmay not
unilaterallyimposenovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirementsbeyondthosesetforth at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5,asexpressedin Kazarian,596F.3dat 1121,citing LoveKoreanChurchv. Cheru;ff 549 F.3d
749,758(9thCir.2008),neithercanit ignoreclearlystatedregulatoryrequirements.
The petitioner doesnot claim to meetor submit evidencerelating to the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page7
Onappeal,thepetitionerconteststhedirector'sdeterminationregardingthefollowingprizesor awards:
1.
in2006;
2.
2008;
3.
4.
2007.
Counselalso lists multiple awardsthat the appellatebrief admittedlyclassifiesas regionalawards,
which lack the nationalor internationalrecognitionrequirementwithin the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). In additionto beingregional,someof theseawardsare limited to youth or "new
talent." It is the petitioner'sburdento demonstratethat awardswith a limited pool of competitorsarc
still nationallyor internationallyrecognized.Thepetitionerhasnotmetthisburden.
Regardingitem 1,the directordeterminedthat thepetitionerfailed to demonstratethat the awardwas
issuedfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield of endeavor.Theevidencesubmittedonappealovercomes
the director's notedshortcomingthat the petitionerfailed to provide the criteria for the award. The
recordnow demonstratesthat CCCA issuedthe awardfor excellence. Remainingunresolvedis the
requirementthat the awardbe nationallyor internationallyrecognized. Nationaland international
recognition results,not from the individuals who issued the prize or the award, but through the
awarenessof the accoladein the field nationallyor internationally.This canoccurthroughseveral
means;for example,throughmediacoverageof theawardselections.
The petitioner assertedthat the Most CompetitiveArtwork award qualifies as a nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardthrough:(1) theparticipationof internationalcandidates;and
(2) throughacknowledgementfromhighrankingChinesegovernmentofficialsof the2007NewYear
Conventionof China ProminentArtists, which was the conventionwherethe petitionerreceivedthis
award. Evidencedemonstratingthattheaward'scandidateswerefrom severalregionsof Chinaaswell
asfrom othernationsdoesnot demonstratethis awardis recognizedat a nationallevel. Selectionfrom
anationalpoolof candidatesdoesnot necessarilyimpartnationalsignificanceto anaward.
Regardingthe acknowledgementfrom Chinesegovernmentofficials, the recordcontainsan article
originatingfrom Forumfor Asia datedJanuary15, 2007,that reportson "telegraphsfrom high-
rank[ing]officialsof departmentsunderthePartyCentralCommitteeexpressingtheirbestwishesthat
the Conventionwill be able to providea platformto assistinternationalartists' exchange." The
"telegraphs"outlinedwithin thisarticleacknowledgetheconventionitselfratherthananyawardissued
Page8
at the convention. The plain languageof the regulationrequiresthat the nationalor international
recognitionrelateto the awardratherthan to the conventionduringwhich the awardwas issued.
Additionally,thepetitionerdid notprovideevidenceof the"telegraphs"from thegovernmentofficials
to demonstrateanyadditionalcontentthatmight relateto thepetitioner'saward. Regardingwhetherthe
Forumfor Asia constitutednationalor internationalrecognition,the petitionerprovideda Profileof
Forum for Asia from the website asiaforums.org. However, this is not independentevidenceas it
originatedfrom Forumfor Asia andis essentiallyself-promotionalmaterial. USCISneednot relyon
theself-promotionalmaterialof thepublisher. SeeBraga v. Poulos,No. CV 06 5105 SJO(C. D. CA
July6, 2007)aff'd 2009WL 604888(9thCir. 2009)(concludingthattheAAO did not haveto relyon
self-servingassertionson thecoverof a magazineasto themagazine'sstatusasmajormedia).
Regardingitem 2, the director determinedthat the petitionersubmittedinsufficientevidenceto
demonstratethattheawardwasnationallyor internationallyrecognized.Counselassertsthisawardis
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedby statingwithin theappellatebrief thatthiswasa nationwide
contest. Nationalandinternationalrecognitionresults,not from the originsof the individualswho
competefor theprizeor theaward,but throughtheawarenessof theaccoladein thefield nationallyor
internationally. Evidencedemonstratingthecandidatesfor the awardwerefrom "all over China" does
notdemonstratethatthisawardis recognizedin thefield at a nationallevel. As previouslynoted,the
AAO will not presumenationalor internationalrecognitionin thefield from thenationalnatureof the
poolof candidates.
In referenceto item 3, the director determinedthat the award was not issuedfor excellencein the
petitioner'sfield of endeavor.Onappeal,counseldoesnotoffer anyadditionalevidenceor analysisto
overcomethedirector'snotedshortcoming.It is alsoimportantto notethatthepetitioner'sevidence
demonstratesonly thathewasa finalist,insteadof establishingthatheactuallyreceiveda placement
award. Theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[dlocumentationof
the alien's receipt" of prizesor awards. The recordis lacking evidenceor analysisto describehow
simplybeinga finalistis equalto receivinga prizeor anawardfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
TheAAO concurswith the director'sdeterminationthatthe petitionerhasfailedto submitevidence
demonstratingthatthisawardwasissuedfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield.
Regardingitem4, thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailedto demonstratethatthe awardwas
issuedfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield. Thepetitionercanestablishthata prizeor awardwas
issuedfor excellencein hisor herfield throughseveralmeans;for example,throughevidenceof the
selectioncriteriafor theaward. On appeal,counselassertsthatthejudging panelwasallegedly"formed
by mastersin theartworld." Counselfurtherassertsthat"[tJhewinning worksarethebestof thebest,"
astheChinaInternationalArtistsSociety(CIAS)reportedin a2007article. Counselconcludesthatthis
informationis sufficientto showthattheawardwasto recognizeexcellencein thepetitioner'sfieldof
endeavor.Thedirectoraddressedthe2007articlewithin herdecisionanddeterminedthattheprovided
evidenceamountedto vagueassertionsas no evidencewas providedto demonstratewhat CIAS
considersto bethe"bestof thebest"and"mastersof theartworld." Thedirectornotifiedthepetitioner
thatthiscouldbeaccomplishedthroughCIAS's"bylaws,contestrulesor otherdocumentation."
Page9
Onappeal,thepetitionerdid notprovidefurtherevidenceor analysisbeyondwhatheprovidedto the
directorwithin theinitial proceedings.Theappellatebrief andevidencesubmittedon appealdoesnot
revealtheselectioncriteria. TheAAO will notpresumethata givenawardis issuedfor excellencein
the field of endeavorfrom the panel of judges or vague media coverage,without evidence
demonstratingthattheissuingauthoritywasrecognizingexcellencein thepetitioner'sfield of endeavor.
ratherthanparticipationor anachievementata levellessthanexcellence.TheAAO concurswith the
director'sultimateconclusionasit relatesto this award;thatthepetitionerhasnot demonstratedthatthe
awardwasoneissuedfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield of endeavor.
The evidencesubmittedunderthis criterion hasno evidentiaryor probativevalue dueto thedeficient
translationsdiscussedwithin thisdecision.Notwithstandingthisfatalevidentiarydefect,thepetitioner
hasnot presentedanalysisor evidenceon appealthat might demonstratehis eligibility underthis
criterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
Thiscriterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy.First,thepetitionermust
demonstratethatheis a memberof morethanoneassociationin hisfield. Second,thepetitionermust
demonstrateboth of the following: (1) that the associationsutilize nationallyor internationally
recognizedexpertstojudgetheachievements(in theplural)of prospectivememberstodetermineif the
achievementsareoutstanding,and(2) that the associationsusethis outstandingdeterminationas a
conditionof eligibility for prospectivemembership.It is insufficientfor the associationitself to
determineif theachievementswereoutstanding,unlessnationallyor internationallyrecognizedexperts
in thepetitioner'sfield,who representtheassociation,renderthisdetermination.Thepetitionermust
satisfyall of theseelementstomeettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The director determinedthat the petitionerfailed to meetthe requirementsof this criterion. Several
formsof evidencethatthepetitionerprovidedrelatingto thiscriterionarein a foreignlanguageandthe
accompanyingtranslationsare deficientas each is not certified in accordancewith 8C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(3).Theonly acceptableevidenceis in theform of a websiteprintoulwherebythewebsite
itselfprovideda foreignlanguageversionin additionto theEnglishlanguageversionof thewebpage's
content. However,thiswebsiteprintoutonly containsinformationrelatedto therespectiveorgamzation
rather than demonstratingthat the petitioner was a memberof the claimed associationunder this
criterion. As such,thepetitionerhasfailed to providesufficientprobativeevidenceto satisfytheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Onappealthepetitionerclaimseligibility for thiscriterionbasedonmembershipin threeassociations,
eachof whichthedirectorconsideredwithin herdecision.Thethreemembershipsthepetitionerclaims
onappealarein thefollowingassociations:
1. TheChinaCalligrapherandPainterAssociation(CCPA),
Page10
2. CIAS,and
3. TheBeijingCalligraphersAssociation(BCA).
Theevidenceof theCCPAmembershiprequirementswithin theinitial filing conflictswith theevidence
submittedin responseto the RFE. Eachform of evidenceoriginatedfrom differentwebsites,yetthe
petitionerprovidedno explanationasto why he providedevidencefrom different sources.The initial
evidence(listing six criteria)derivedfrom ccapa.net,while theevidenceprovidedin responseto the
RFE (listing eight criteria,someof which are similar but not identicalto the six criteria claimed
initially) derivedfromjjshh.com. It is incumbentuponthepetitionerto resolveanyinconsistenciesin
therecordby independentobjectiveevidence.Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec.582,591-92(BIA 1988).
Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill not sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmits
competentobjectiveevidencepointingtowherethetruthlies. Id.
Within the RFEresponse,the petitionerprovidedthe CCPAbylaws,which containthe membership
requirementsandstate:"[slenior membersmustbe recommendedby CCPAmembers,evaluatedby
CCPA's committeeof art, and approvedby CCPA's standingcommittee." This evidencedoesnot
demonstratethat the CCPA utilized nationally or internationally recognizedexperts to judge the
achievementsof prospectivemembers. Additionally, the bylaws of the CCPA containa list of
requirementsfor membership,someof whicharemoredemandingthanothers.Forexample,according
to the materials submitted in responseto the RFE, qualifying prospectivemembers include an
individual:
• Whoseworkshavebeenpublisheddemonstratinga high level of achievementandprofound
influencein thework of calligraphyandpainting;
• Whohasearneda highlevelof expertiseandreputationdueto hisor hercontributionto artistic
theoryandhistorystudyandresearch;or
• Who hasdemonstratedequivalentlevel of superiorityin art creation,or managerswho hasbeen
activelyinvolvedin CCPAactivities.(Thisbullet is aportionof theconflictingevidence).
However,accordingto the samesubmission,thesequalifying elementsarecontainedwithin a list of
requirementsthat fall far short of meeting the plain languagerequirementsof this criterion. For
example,qualifyingprospectivemembersalsoincludeanindividual:
• Whoseworkshavebeenselectedfor exhibitionhostedby CCPA;
• Whohasobtainedadvancedartisticcertificates;or
• Whohasengagedm micro-mscription,3-D creationandreceivedawards.(Thisrequirementis
notlistedamongthesixcriteriain theinitial evidence).
PageI 1
As a prospectivemembercouldqualifyfor membershipbasedonjust oneof theselesserelementsthat
do not exhibit outstandingachievement,the evidencedoesnot demonstratethat the CCPA requires
outstandingachievementasjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor
fields,asa conditionof membership.Ultimately,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedconsistent,credible
evidenceof theCCPAmembershipcriteriasuchthathecanmeethisburdenof proof assetforth in
Matter of Chawarhe,25 I&N Dec.at376.
ThepetitionerprovidedtheCIAS bylawsin responseto theRFE. This association'shvlawscontainthe
membershipcriteria and reflect that the associationhas three typesof members; entity members,
individual members,andhonorarymembers.Thebylawsdo not specifydifferent requirementsfor the
threedifferenttypesof membership.Thepetitionerprovidedevidenceof hismembershipcardanda
translationinto English,but thetranslation,in additionto lackingan individualcertification,failedto
reflectwhichof thethreemembershiptypesappliesto thepetitioner.Regardless,thebylawsreflectthe
followingrequirementsof prospectivemembers:
• Support CIAS's bylaws and possessexpertisein artistic creation. researchand education
includingnon-professionalswholoveChineseart;
• Willingnesstojoin CIAS;and
• RecommendedbytwoCIASmembersandapprovedbyCIAS'sstandingcommittee.
TheCIASbylawslackboththerequirementthatnationallyor internationallyrecognizedexpertsin the
petitioner'sfieldjudgea prospectivemember'sachievementsasoutstanding,andthattheassociation
reliesuponthisdeterminationof outstandingachievementasaconditionof admittance.Theadditional
evidenceprovided,suchasthe letter from affirming a vague
requirementof "specialtyandexcellencein the fields of artisticcreation,researchandeducation.etc.,
is insufficientto demonstratethatCIAS requiresoutstandingachievementsof its membersasjudgedby
nationalor internationalexperts.
The final associationthat the petitionerclaimswithin the appellatebrief is the BCA. The bylawsthat
thepetitionerprovidedfor this associationin responseto theRFEreflectthefollowing requirementsfor
individualswho meeta setof prerequisites,whichinclude"calligraphicpractitionersandaficionados
who haveachievedsubstantialaccomplishmentsin the field of calligraphy and acquirea substantial
level of artistic achievements."The petitionerfailed to provide evidenceto representwhat the BCA
considersto beonewho has"achievedsubstantialaccomplishments"or to haveacquired"a substantial
level of artistic achievements"in the field of calligraphy. This information is insufficient to
demonstratethat the BCA meetsthe plain languagerequirementsof this criterion. In addition to the
undefinedaccomplishmentsabove,the BCA alsoadmitspotentialmemberswho candemonstrateone
of thefollowing:
• Possessesa high level of creativity and hasparticipatedfor at leastone time in an important
exhibitionor twotimesin specialexhibitionsorganizedbythisorganization;or
Page12
• Possessesacollegedegreein calligraphyandhasbeenadmittedto thisorganization'sexhibition
or haspublishedat leasttwo papersof calligraphictheorystudyin regionalor localperiodical;
or whohasagraduatedegreein calligraphyandhasactivelyparticipated[in] ouractivities.
This bulleted list representsthe membershipcriteria that do not exhibit outstandingachievement.As
such,membershipin thisassociationwill notsatisfytherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evenif thepetitionerwereto demonstratethatoneof his claimedmembershipsin anassociationcould
satisfytheregulatoryrequirementsof thiscriterion,theevidencewouldstill fall shortof satisfyingthe
membershipcriterionas the plain languageof the regulationrequiresevidenceof membershipin
"associations"in the plural, which is consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence.
Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act. Significantly,not all of thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)are
wordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only require
serviceon a singlejudging panelor a singlehigh salary. Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto include
thesingularwithin theplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that
evidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin the
remainingregulatorycriteria hasmeaning. In a different context,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'
ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor plural is usedin a regulation. See
Maramjaya v. USC/S,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158(RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008);
Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan
interpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegree
at8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(l)(2)requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Theevidencesubmittedunderthiscriterionhasno evidentiaryor probativevaluedueto thedeficient
translationsdiscussedwithin this decision. Notwithstandingthis fatal evidentiarydefect,theevidence
submitteddoesnotmeettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major
media,relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classificationis sought. Suchevidence
shall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
The director determinedthat the petitionermet the requirementsof this criterion. The AAO departs
from thedirector'seligibility determinationrelatedto this criterionbasedon thedeficienttranslationsof
foreign languagedocumentsthat are not in accordancewith 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The only
acceptableprobativeevidenceis in theformof websiteprintoutswherebythewebsiteitselfprovideda
foreign languageversion in addition to the English languageversion of the webpage'scontent.
However,thesewebsiteprintoutsonly containinformationrelatedto the respectiveorganizationrather
thandemonstratingthatthepublishedmaterialwasaboutthepetitionerandwasrelatedto hiswork.
Additionally, the directorgrantedthis criterionbasedon only onearticle in onepublication,while the
plainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresevidenceof publishedmaterialin
"professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia"in theplural,which is consistentwith
the statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence. Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act; 8 U.S.C.
Page13
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). As previouslynoted,theAAO caninfer that theplural languagein the regulatory
criteriahasmeaning.
The directorbasedher favorabledeterminationon the article that appearedin Culture Heritage.
However,a reviewof theevidencerevealsthatthepetitionerprovideda summaryor a synopsisof the
article,which essentiallydescribedthe articlein question. As the regulationrequiresa full English
languagetranslationof thearticleitself,a summaryof thearticleis not acceptableevidenceunderthe
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Of additionalimportance,thetranslationdoesnot containthedate
or theauthorof thearticle. Theregulationrequiresnotonlythetitle of theevidence,but it alsorequires
the dateand the authorof the material. See8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Therefore,the article is not
probativeevidencethat can satisfy the plain languagerequirementsof this regulatorycriterion. As
evidenceof the distribution of this publication,the petitionersubmittedan uncertified translationof
material from the website fstten.comindicating a distribution of 100,000. The petitioner,however,
failed to provide any informationabout the independenceand reliability of this websiteor an
explanationas to how this distributionnumberis indicativeof or consistentwith a major trade
publicationor othermajormedia.
Theremainingformsof evidenceunderthepublishedmaterialscriterionconsistsof articlesfromthe
following:
1. 21" CenturyEducation;
2. BeijingEveningNews;
3. CalligraphyGuidePaper;
4. ChinaCalligraphyandPaintingResearch;
5. ChinaCalligraphyAcademics;
6. PostofChina- PostCards;and
7. culture.ifeng.com.
Regardingitem 1,thepetitionerprovidedasummaryor asynopsisof anarticlethatallegedlyappeared
in this publication. As the regulationrequiresa full English languagetranslation,a summaryof the
articleis notacceptableevidenceundertheregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Thetranslationis also
deficientof the author'sname,which is requiredunderthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Counsel's appellatebrief describesthis publication as a professionalor major trade publication.
However,the unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence. Matter of Obaigbena,
19I&N Dec.533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988);Matter of Laureano,19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983);
Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506 (BIA 1980). Theunsupportedassertionsof counsel
in a brief arenot evidenceandthusarenot entitledto anyevidentiaryweight. SeeINS v. Phinpathya,
464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984).
Regardingitem 2, the petitionerprovidedmore than one article from this source. The director
determinedthattheevidenceprovidedwasprimarilyabouta competitioninsteadof beingaboutthe
petitioner.Withinthedirector'sdecision,shediscussedthearticleaboutthe3* BeijingWelcomesthe
Olympic Games. The directordeterminedthat this article was not aboutthe petitionerandrelatingto
Page14
hiswork in thefield. However,a reviewof therecordrevealsanotherarticlefrom theBeijingEvening
Newstitled "Signing Promotion for the Collection of [the petitioner's] Calligraphic Works This
articleis abouthimandrelatesto hiswork in thefield. Counselclassifiedthispublicationasa formof
major mediawithin the initial filing andin responseto the RFE. However,in referenceto this article
appearingin a form of major media, the petitioner only submittedthe rankings from the Mondo
Newspaperswebsite. This site is directly affiliated with Mondo Times. A review of this website
reflectsthat "Mondo Times is the worldwidemediadirectory,coveringthousandsof newspapers.
magazines,radiostations,televisionstations,networksandnewsagenciesaroundtheworld."^ In fact,
thewebsiteindicatesthatausercansearch"33,100mediaoutletsin 213countries."Further,avisitorto
thewebsitemayaddamediaoutletby completingthreesteps.Thefactthatawebsitecontainsalisting
for mediaoutletsaroundtheworld is not persuasiveevidencethateverylistednewspaperconshtutes
"major media."
The petitionerdid not providethe circulationdataof Beijing EveningNewsto comparewith the
circulationstatisticsof otherChinesenewspapers,andhehasconsequentlyfailedto establishthatthe
BeijingEveningNewsis a formof majormedia.Thepetitioneralsoprovidednoinformationrelatedto
thedistributiondataof theBeijing EveningNewsto establishthat this publicationhasa nationalrather
thana regionalreachwithin China. Publicationswith only a regionalreacharenot consideredto be
majormediaandthepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatthispublicationis a professionalor majortrade
publicationasalsopermittedby theregulation.
Theevidencerelatingto item3 consistsof a translateddocumentthatmerelystatesthatthepetitioner's
"masterin FineArtsCalligraphicworkswerepublishedin CalligraphyGuidePaper.Issue20.May20.
2009 ' It is not apparentif this is a statementfrom an individual or if it derivesfrom someother .
document.It is thepetitioner'sburdento demonstrateeligibility. It isnotapparentfromthetranslation
to what foreign languagedocumentthe translationrelates. Thus,this evidencewill not be considered
withinthecurrentproceedings.
Item4 notedaboveappearsto bea photographin thepublicationaccompaniedby acaption. A caption
accompanyinga photographthat accompaniesan actualarticleis not publishedmaterialaboutthe
petitionerrelatingto hiswork. Althoughthepetitionerprovidedinformationaboutthispublication,it is
not apparentfrom wherethis informationderived. The petitionersimply provideda typedpage
containingtheinformationwithoutanyindicationif thisisatranslationof anotherdocumentor whether
this is a stand-alonedocument.Thepetitioneralsoprovidedwhatappearsto bea translationof another
documentaboutthe China Calligraphy and Painting Researchpublication,but this evidencemerelv
indicatesChina Calligraphy and Painting Researchis a journal anddoesnot demonstratethat it is a
professionalpublication,or a major tradepublication. The translationalsofailed to indicatetheorigin
of thisinformationtoreflectif it is fromthepublicationitselfor fromanindependentsource.
Seehttp://www.mondotimes.com/aboutlindex.html.Accessedon July 17, 2012,and incorporatedinto the record
of proceeding.
Page15
Regardingitem5, thetranslationof theevidencemerelyreportsthatthenamesof thewinnersof the3"'
Beijing Welcomesthe OlympicTV CalligraphyCompetitionwerepublishedin an issueof China
Calligraphy,ChinaArt, andthatthepetitionerwon thebronzemedal. It is not apparentwhetherthe
translationis a synopsisor if it is a direct translationof an article. Regardlessthis evidenceis
insufficientto demonstratethat this evidenceequatesto publishedmaterialaboutthe petitionerand
relatingto his work in thefield. Thepetitionerprovidedthe"About Us" page,whichappearsto be
from the China Calligraphy Academicswebsite. This evidenceindicated that this is a national
publication,but thepetitionerfailedto provideanyindependentinformationrelatedto thispublication.
USCISneednotrelyontheself-promotionalmaterialof thepublisher.SeeBragav.Poulos,No.CV 06
5105SJOaff'd 2009WL 604888(91hCir. 2009). Additionally,thetranslationfailedto meettheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterionasit islackingthetitle,date,andauthorof thearticle.
The evidencerelating to item 6 consistsof postcardsthat featuredthe petitioner's artwork. The
petitionerhas not demonstratedthat postcardsare a professionalor major tradepublicationor other
majormediaascontemplatedby theregulation.As such,thisevidencewill not beconsideredwithin
thisdecision.
Regardingitem 7. thepetitionerprovidedevidencefrom thewebsite,culture.ifeng.comaccompaniedby
a translationinto English. Counsel'sRFE responsebrief indicatedthat this websiteis the official
websiteof thePhoenixChineseChannel. Thepetitionerpresentedthis evidenceasa form of major
media,but supportedthis assertionwith evidencerelatingto the televisionportionof the company
insteadof informationrelatingto thewebsiteitself. Sincetheevidenceappearedon culture.ifeng.com,
the petitionermust documentthat this Internet-basedformat is a form of major mediainsteadof the
PhoenixChineseChannel.
In viewof theforegoing,thepetitionerhasfailedto providesufficientprobativeevidencetosatisfythe
plain languagerequirementsof this criterion and as a result, the AAO withdraws the director's
favorabledeterminationasit relatesto thiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of
othersin thesameor analliedfield ofspecificationfor whichclassificationissought.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionermettherequirementsof thiscriterion. The AAO departs
from thedirector'seligibility determinationrelatedto this criterionbecauseof thedeficienttranslations
notedabove. Consequently,the documentlacks the elementsto qualify as probativeevidence. As
such,theAAO cannotascribeanyevidentiaryweighttothisfaciallydeficientdocument.
Absentan individuallycertifiedtranslation,the petitionerhasfailed to providesufficientprobative
evidenceto satisfytheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterionandasa result,theAAO withdraws
thedirector'sfavorabledeterminationasit relatestothiscriterion.
Page16
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Theplain languageof this regulatorycriterioncontainsmultiple evidentiaryelementsthatthepetitioner
mustsatisfy. The first is evidenceof thepetitioner'scontributions(in theplural)in his field. These
contributionsmust havealreadybeenrealizedratherthan being potential,future contributions. The
petitionermustalsodemonstratethathiscontributionsareoriginal. Theevidencemustestablishthatthe
contributionsare scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-relatedin nature. The final
requirementis thatthecontributionsriseto thelevel of majorsignificancein thefield asa whole,rather
thanto a projector to anorganization.Thephrase"major significance"is not superfluousand,thus.it
hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51 F. 3d28,31 (3* Cir. 1995)
quotedin APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"dCir.Sep 15, 2003). Contributionsof major
significanceconnotesthatthe petitioner'swork hassignificantlyimpactedthe field. The petitioner
mustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplain languagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Thepetitionerprovidedexpertletters,a scholarlypaperthepetitionerauthored,andmediacoverageof
his work. The directordeterminedthatthe petitionerfailed to meetthe requirementsof this criterion.
Onappealthepetitionerprovidesnewevidencein theformof additionalletters,anddocumentsrelating
to thepriceof artwork. Neithercounselnor thepetitionerconteststhedirector'sadversedetermination
underthis criterion. Nor doeseitherpartyassertanerrorin factor anerror in theapplicationof thelaw
on thedirector'spartunderthis criterion. Thepetitionersimply presentsnewevidencein anattemptto
satisfythiscriterion'srequirements.
where
the petitionerattendedthe MasterProgramin 2006, assertsthat the petitioner's "calligraphic works
haveexertedincreasinginfluenceon the Chinesecalligraphicworld and haveattractedextensive
attention." Although claimsthe petitioner'swork hasinfluencedhis field, shefailed to
provideexamplesthatthepetitionercorroboratedwith additionaldocumentaryevidence.Theremaining
expertletterssubmittedbeforethe directormerelyboastof the petitioner'sskills andabilitiesasa
calligraphist.
Within the RFEresponse,counselcomingledtheanalysisrelatingto thepetitioner'scontributionsof
major significanceandhis authorshipof scholarlyarticles. Theregulationscontaina separatecriterion
regardingthe authorshipof publishedarticles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulationsareto be
interpretedwith any logic, it must be presumedthat the regulationviews contributionsas a separate
evidentiaryrequirementfrom scholarlyarticles Ultimately,theAAO will notpresumethatevidence
directly relatingto onecriterionis presumptiveevidencethat analienmeetsa secondcriterion. Sucha
4 Publicationand presentationsare not sufficient evidenceunder8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)absentevidencethat
theywereof "majorsignificance."Kazarianv.USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9th
1115(9thCir.2010).In2010,theKazariancourtreaffirmeditsholdingthattheAAOdidnotabuseitsdiscretion
in findingthatthealienhadnotdemonstratedcontributionsof majorsignificance.596F.3dat 1122.
Page17
presumptionwould negatethe statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidenceand the regulatory
requirementthatanalienmeetatleastthreecriteria. However,if thepetitionersufficientlydocumented
the mannerin which his scholarlypublicationsignificantlyimpactedhis field, this impactmay be
consideredunderthis criterion. An alien musthavedemonstrablyimpactedhis field in order to meet
this regulatorycriterion. The referenceletterssubmittedby the petitionerbriefly discusshis artistic
skillsandculturalactivities,buttheydonotprovidespecificexamplesof howthepetitioner'sworkhas
significantly impactedthe field at large or otherwiseconstitutesoriginal contributionsof major
significance.
Counsel'sRFE responsebrief put forth numerousreasonsexplainingwhy the petitioner'sscholarly
article amountedto a contributionof major significancein the petitioner'sfield. However,the
unsupportedassertionsof counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaighena, 19 l&N
Dec.at534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17 I&N
Dec.at506. Theunsupportedassertionsof counselin abrief arenotevidenceandthusarenotentitled
to anyevidentiaryweight. SeeINSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.at 188-89n.6. Counselalsoassertedthat
recognitionof the petitioner'sresearchthroughacceptanceof his scholarlyarticle for publication
satisfiedthiscriterion'srequirement.While acceptanceof hiswork for publication,circulationof that
workandawarenessof hisideasasexpressedin referencelettersisnotable,theyarenottheonlyfactors
to beconsideredin determiningthe petitioner'seligibility for this criterion. A singleinstanceof being
publishedand personalawarenessthrough peer lettersmay be reflective of the petitioner's original
findings and that the field hastakensomeinterestin the petitioner'swork, but it is not an automatic
indicator that the petitioner's work has been of major significancein the field. The AAO is not
persuadedthat theevidencesubmittedwithin the initial proceedingsreflectsthat the petitioner'swork
has been of major significance in the field. Furthermore,the petitioner failed to submit any
documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat his article hasbeeninfluential at a level consistentwith a
contributionof majorsignificance.In thiscase,thepetitioner'sdocumentationis notrelevantprobative
evidenceof thepetitioner'ssignificantimpactin thefield. Merelysubmittingdocumentationreflecting
that the petitioner'swork hasbeenpostedon websitesis insufficientto establisheligibility for this
criterionwithoutdocumentaryevidencereflectingthatthepetitioner'swork, onceposted,hasbeenof
majorsignificancein thefield.
On eal,the etitionersubmitsa secondletterfrom , a professorat
into greatdetailregardingthehistoryof calligraphyandexplainshow
thepetitionerpossessesa uniqueability to blenddifferenttypesof script. The regulation,however,
requiresthat any uniquetalentbe a contributionin the petitioner'sfield that is of major significance.
The professordid not describehow the petitioner'suniqueabilitieshavealreadyhadan impact in his
field.
Thepetitioneralsosubmitsasecondletterfrom whoaffirmsthatthepetitioner'sresearchinto
WesternJincalligraphichistoryhasfilled agapin a studythathasbeendormantin recenthistory.The
petitionerdid not providedocumentaryevidenceto corroborate claims. Goingon record
withoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proof
in theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,22I&N Dec.at 165.Evenif thepetitionerhadsubstantiatedthe
Page18
Dean'sclaims,thefactthathisresearchis rareandfocusesonaforgottenaspectof calligraphydoesnot
demonstratethat his researchhas significantly impactedhis field. Rather,the petitionermust
demonstratehowthisrenewedfocushasimpactedthefield.
The secondletterfrom
at the petitioner's unique researchhas changedthe traditional
cognitionin regardstothecalligraphyhistoryin thatperiodandhasbeenwell-receivedby professionals
in [the] calligraphic field." He also assertsthat the petitioner's "studies have made extraordinary
contributionto thecalligraphicworld." Thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedwhat impactchanging"the
traditionalcognition" hashad in his field, and the professor'suseof the regulatorylanguagewithout
specificdetailsof the"extraordinarycontribution"doesnotsatisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. See
FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F. 2d41 (2d.Cir.
1990);AvyrAssociates,Inc.v.Meissner,1997WL 188942at*5 (S.D.N.Y.).
The final form of evidencerelatedto the petitioner'sresearchis a letter from who is
employedat the Editorial Departmentof China Painting and Calligraphy. closesthe letter
stating:"[[T]he petitioner's]paperwasdistinguishing,incisive andnovel that it maydrive a thorough
studyof the calligraphicvalueof Ixulan documentsto fill the gapof Chinesecalligraphichistory
researchwith respectto Westernfin Dynasty."(Emphasisadded.)Thelanguageclearlyindicatesthat
the petitioner'sresearchmight havea future impactin his field, but it falls shortof evenclaiming that
his researchhasalreadyimpactedhis field asa whole. A petitionercannotfile a petitionunderthis
classificationbasedon theexpectationof futureeligibility. Theassertionthatthepetitioners research
resultsarelikely tobeinfluentialis notrelevantor probativeto thequestionof whetherhisfindingsare
alreadyrecognizedasmajorcontributionsin the field. Eligibility mustbe establishedat the time of
filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter of Katigbak,14 I&N Dec.at 49. A petitioncannotbe
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of
facts. Matterof/zummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. That decision further provides, citing
Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114(BIA 1981),that USCIScannot"considerfactsthatcomeinto
beingonly subsequentto thefiling of a petition." Id. at 176. This letterdiscussesthefuturepromiseof
the petitioner'sresearch,rather than how his researchalreadyqualifies as a contribution of major
significancein thefield.
The Boardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) hasheld thattestimonyshouldnot be disregardedsimply
becauseit is "self-serving See,e.g.,Matter of S-A-,22 I&N Dec. 1328,1332(BIA 2000)(citing
cases).The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage,but require the introduction of
corroborativetestimonialanddocumentaryevidence,whereavailable."Id. If testimonialevidence
lacksspecificity,detail,or credibility,thereis a greaterneedfor thepetitionerto submitcorroborative
evidence.MatterofY-B-,21I&N Dec.1136(BIA 1998).
Vague,solicitedlettersfrom localcolleaguesthatdo not specificallyidentifycontributionsor provide
specificexamplesof howthosecontributionsinfluencedthefield areinsufficient.Kazarianv. USCIS,
580F.3d1030,1036(9* Cir. 2009)aff'd inpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). In 2010,theKazarian
courtreiteratedthattheAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessorsattestingto [thealien's]
Page19
contributionsin thefield" wasinsufficientwas"consistentwith therelevantregulatorylanguagc. 596
F.3dat 1122. Theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenot withoutweightandhavebeenconsidered
above. Whilesuchletterscanprovideimportantdetailsaboutthepetitioner'sskills.theycannotform
the cornerstoneof a successfulextraordinaryability claim. USCISmay, in its discretion,useas
advisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedas experttestimony. SeeMatter of' Caron International,
19l&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r1988).However,USCISisultimatelyresponsibleformakingthefinal
determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom
expertssupportingthe petitionis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay evaluatethe
contentof those lettersas to whetherthey supportthe alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; seealso
Matterof V-K, 24 I&N Dec.500, n.2 (BIA 2008)(notingthat expertopinion testimonydoesnot
purport to be evidenceas to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not
corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is in any way questionable.Id. at 795;seealso
Matterof' Soffici, 22I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of' TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N
Dec.at 190). Thus, the contentof the writers' statementsand how they becameawareof the
petitioner'sreputationareimportantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenby independentexperts,letters
solicitedby an alien in supportof an immigrationpetition are of less weight than preexisting,
independentevidenceof originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
As such, the petitionerhas failed to provide sufficient evidenceto satisfy the plain language
requirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien s authorshipof scholarlyarticles in thefield in professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia.
Thiscriterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfythroughthesubmission
of evidence.Thefirst is thatthepetitionerisanauthorof scholarlyarticles(in theplural)in hisfield in
which he intendsto engageonce admittedto the United Statesas a lawful permanentresident.
Scholarly articles generally report on original researchor experimentation,involve scholarly
investigations,containsubstantialfootnotesor bibliographies,andarepeerreviewed. Additionally,
while not required.scholarlyarticlesareoftentimesintendedfor andwritten for learnedpersonsin the
field whopossessaprofoundknowledgeof thefield. Thesecondelementis thatthescholarlyarticles
appearin oneof thefollowing: a professionalpublication,a majortradepublication,or in a form of
majormedia. The petitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingeachof theseelementsto meettheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The director determinedthat the petitionermet the requirementsof this criterion. The AAO departs
from the director's eligibility determinationrelatedto this criterion not only becauseof the deficient
translationsnotedabove,butalsodueto thefactthatthepetitioneronly demonstratedheauthoredone
scholarlyarticle,while the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires
evidenceof the petitioner'sauthorshipof "scholarlyarticles" in the plural,which is consistentwith the
statutory requirementfor extensiveevidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). As previouslynoted,theAAO caninfer thattheplural languagein the regulatory
criteria hasmeaning. The fact thatthis samearticleappearedin theChinesePainting and Calligraphy
Page20
periodical,the China KnowledgeInternetwebsite(www.global.cnki.net),as well as the Yanhuang
ChinaCalligraphynetworkwebsite(www.yhsf.org)doesnottransformthissinglearticleintomorethan
onedistinctarticle.
As such,thepetitionerhasfailedto providesufficientprobativeevidenceto satisfytheplainlanguage
requirementsof thiscriterionandasa result,theAAO withdrawsthedirector'sfavorabledetermination
asit relatesto thiscriterion.
Evidenceof thedisplayofthe alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor showcases.
This criterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. The plain language
requirementsof this criterionrequiresthatthe work in the field is directlyattributableto the alien.
Additionally, the interpretationthat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)is limited to the visual arts is
longstandingandhasbeenupheldby a federaldistrictcourt. Negro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJat *7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinganinterpretationthatperformancesby a performing
artistdo notfall under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii)).Thealien'swork alsomusthavebeendisplayedat
artisticexhibitionsor showcases(in theplural). While neitherthe regulationnor existingprecedent
speakto what constitutesan exhibition or a showcase,Merriam-Webster'sonline dictionary defines
exhibition as, "a public showing (as of works of art)."' Merriam-Webster'sonline dictionary also
definesshowcaseas."a setting,occasion,or mediumfor exhibitingsomethingor someoneespeciallyin
an attractiveor favorableaspect."" Dictionariesare not of themselvesevidence,but they may be
referredto as aidsto the memoryandunderstandingof the court. Nix v. Hedden,149 U.S.304,
306(1893). Therefore,it is the petitioner'sburdento demonstratethat the displayof his work in the
field claimedunderthis criterionoccurredat artisticexhibitionsor at artisticshowcases.The petitioner
mustsatisfyall of theseelementsto meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionermettherequirernentsof this criterionthroughthesubmission
of threeformsof evidence:(1) theexhibitionheldat theChinaNationalMuseumof FineArts,(2) the
ChineseCalligraphyandPaintingExhibition,and(3) a programrelatedto the 12thBeijingCalligraphy
andSealCarvingExhibition. While thesethreeformsof evidencemightenablethepetitionerto meet
theplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterionif eachwasaccompaniedby asufficienttranslationand
translator'scertificationin accordancewith 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),thefact remainsthatthepetitioner
did not providethe requiredtranslator'scertification. Therefore,the AAO departsfrom thedirector's
favorableeligibility determinationrelatedto thiscriterion.
Basedon the petitioner'sfailure to comply with the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),thepetitioner
hasfailed to provide sufficient probativeevidenceto satisfy the plain languagerequirementsof this
criterionandtheAAO withdrawsthedirector'sfavorabledeterminationasit relatesto this criterion.
Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exhibition,accessedonJuly 17,2012,acopyof which is
incorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.
Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.cornidictionarv/showcase,accessedonJuly 17,2012,acopy of which is
incorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.
Page21
Evidencethat thealien hascommandeda high salary or other significantlyhigh remunerationfor
services,in relation to othersin thefield.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requiresthe petitioner to submit
evidenceof a "high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin
the field." Averagesalaryinformation for thoseperformingwork in a relatedbut distinct occupation
with different responsibilitiesis not a proper basisfor comparison.The petitionermust submit
documentaryevidenceof the earningsof thosein his occupationperformingsimilar work at thetop
levelof thefield.' Thepetitionermustpresentevidenceof objectiveearningsdatashowingthathehas
earneda "high salary"or "significantlyhigh remuneration"in comparisonwith thoseperforming
similar work duringthesametimeperiod. SeeMatter of Price, 20 1&NDec.953.954(Assoc.Comm'r
1994)(consideringprofessionalgolfer's earningsversusotherPGA Tour golfers);seealso Grimsonv.
INS, 934 F. Supp.965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996)(consideringNHL enforcer'ssalaryversusotherNHL
enforcers);Muni v. INS. 891 F. Supp.440, 444-45(N. D. Ill. 1995)(comparingsalaryof NHL
defensiveplayertosalaryof otherNHLdefensemen).
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion. Onappeal
counselassertsthat"thetopcalligraphersin Chinaarealso[the]top onesin theworld becauseof this
uniqueartoriginatedfrom Chinaand[is] mostlypracticedin China. Thefour [calligraphersjselected
[within theRFEresponse]areby nomeansanaveragecalligrapherbutthemostregardedcalligraphers
in China." Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matterof Dhaighena,19
I&N Dec.at534n.2;Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.at3 n.2;MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17l&N
Dec.at 506. Theunsupportedassertionsof counselin a brief arenot evidenceandthusarenotentitled
to any evidentiaryweight. SeeINS v. Phinpathya,464 U.S. at 188-89n.6. Additionally. counsefs
assertionwithin the initial filing brief that: "[t]he establishedprice for one work of calligraphy by
calligrapherswith comparablebackground[to the petitioner]is in the rangeof ¥500- Y2,000per
square"will alsonotbeconsideredasthisassertiondoesnotconstituteevidence.Id.
Thepetitionerprovideda list of severalof his worksof art accompaniedby thesellingpriceof each
piece. Theremunerationrangeof hisworksis between¥4,600and¥36,000.Whilethepetitionerhas
demonstratedtheremunerationfor hisworksin thefield, theplainlanguageof thisregulatorycriterion
requiresevidenceof "a high salaryor othersignificantly high remunerationfor services,in relation to
othersin thefield." (Emphasisadded.) Thepetitioneralsosubmittedthe"Auction Pricesof Artworks
of China's Top Notch Calligraphersin December2010." The translationdoes not identify the
While theAAO acknowledgesthata district court's decisionis not binding precedent,we notethat in Racinev.
INS,1995WL 153319at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated,1T Jheplainreadingof thestatutesuggests
thattheappropriatefieldof comparisonis notacomparisonof Racine'sabilitywiththatof all thehockeyplayers
at all levelsof play; but rather,Racine'sability as a professionalhockeyplayerwithin the NHL This
interpretationis consistentwith . . . thedefinitionof theterm8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforth
in thepreambleat56 Fed.Reg.60898-99."
Page22
documentit is translatingnordoesit providethesourceof thisinformation.Thesimplefactthatoneof
theseindividual's works of art gamereda selling price betweenV1,120and¥13,440doesnot establish
thatthis is a highsalaryor significantlyhighotherremunerationfor theart of thosein thepetitioner's
occupation.Thepetitioneroffersnobasisfor comparisonshowingthathissalarywashighor thathis
otherremunerationwassignificantlyhighin relationto others.Therecordisvoidof objectiveearnings
data showing that the petitioner hasearneda "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration"in
comparisonwith thoseperformingsimilarwork duringthesametime period. In thepresentcase,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedsufficientrelevant,probativeevidenceof ahighsalaryor othersignificantly
highremunerationfor servicesin relationtoothersin thefield.
D. Summary
The petitioner has not submitted sufficient relevant, probative evidenceto satisfy the antecedent
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
E. FinalMeritsDetermination
It is importantto notethatveryfew formsof evidencethatthepetitionerpresentedqualifyasevidence
under the regulationsas each foreign languagedocument is not accompaniedby "a full English
languagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate"in accordancewith the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Normally, the AAO would not perform a final merits
determinationwheretherecordlackssufficientprobativeevidence.However,theAAO will performa
final merits determinationsincethe directorconcludedthat the petitioner(1) met at leastthreeof the
evidentiarycriterionlistedaboveand(2) performedherownfinal meritsanalysis.In accordancewith
theKazarianopinion,thenextstepis a final meritsdeterminationthatconsidersall of theevidencein
thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthat
the individual is one of that small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of
endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that thealienhassustainednationalor internationalacclaim
andthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise." 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
SeeKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.
The petitionerreceivedseveralregionalawards,which arefoundto be lackinga sufficientlevel of
achievementto demonstratethat the petitioneris amongthosein the top of his field. Within the
remainingfour awards,somewerenot issuedfor excellence,while otherslack nationalor international
recognition.Theawardsfrom 2006and2008werefrom a poolof nationalcandidates;however,both
awards lack national or international recognition. The petitioner failed to demonstratethat the
remainingawardsfrom 2004and2007wereissuedfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield. Two awards
lackingnationalor internationalrecognition,andtwo awardsthatwerenotissuedfor excellencein the
field, all issuedseveralyearsbeforethe petitionerfiled the instantpetitionarenot demonstrativeof
sustainedacclaimor thatthepetitioneris amongthatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery topof
thefieldof endeavoratthetimeof filing.
Page23
With regardto themembershipcriterionunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),asdiscussedabove,theAAO
concludesthat the petitionerhasnot met this criterion. The petitioner'smembershipsconsistof
associationsthatdo notrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers.Theassociationsof which
thepetitioneris a memberalsodo not rely uponnationallyor internationallyrecognizedexpertstojudge
if a prospectivemember'sachievementsareoutstanding.The typesof membershipthat thepetitioner
presentedarenot demonstrativeof a level of expertisein "that small percentagewho haverisento the
verytopof thefieldof endeavor."
TheAAO reversedthedirector'sfavorabledeterminationasit relatesto thepublishedmaterialcriterion
under8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),asthepetitionermerelyprovideda translatedsynopsisof thearticle
ratherthana translationof the article's actualcontent. The petitionersubmitsinadequaleevidenceto
establishthe beneficiarymeetsthe requirementsrelatingto publishedmaterialaboutthe alien and
relatedto hiswork in thefield under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).Evidenceof publishedmaterialthat
(1) is not accompaniedby a full, individuallycertifiedtranslationof a foreignlanguagedocument,(2)
lackscorroboratingevidencethatit appearedin aprofessionalor majortradepublicationor othermajor
media,or (3) thatreliesuponthepublication'sownassessmentof its reachdoesnotrepresenta record
of recognitionor achievementindicativeof sustainedacclaimor riseto the level of beingin the top
percentageofthe petitioner'sfield.
Evidenceof a singleinstanceof servingasajudgeon a panelof an unspecifiedsizein 2008cannot
demonstratea "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof thatsmall percentagewho have
risentotheverytopof the[ir] fieldof endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2)or "thatthealienhassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of
expertise"in February2011whenthepetitionerfiled thepetition.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
The petitionerrelieson a single article and severalexpertlettersto demonstratehis claimedoriginal
artisticcontributionsof majorsignificancein hisfield. Thelettersfromthoseworkingin hisfield who
providepraiseof the petitioner'sability as a calligraphistlack the specificityto indicatehow the
petitioner'swork has influencedhis field and fail to reflect any original contributionsof major
significancemadeby thepetitioner. Thesimplerepetitionof thestatutoryandregulatoryrequirements
within theexpertlettersis insufficientto establishthepetitioner'snationalor internationalacclaim.S'ee
Fedin Bros. Co 724 F. Supp.at 1108.affd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates./nc., 1997WL
188942at *S. Additionally, the fact that the petitioner's researchis novel or rare does not, by
default,show thatthis researchalso hasmadea significant impacton his field. While theletter from
identifieda futurepossibleimpactof the petitioner'swork, a petitionermustshowthat
his or her work hasalreadybeeninfluential consistentwith onewho hasattainedthestatusasoneof
thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery topof theirfield of endeavor.
TheAAO reversedthe director'sfavorabledeterminationas it relatesto the authorshipof scholarly
articlescriterionunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),asthepetitionermerelyprovidedasinglearticlethat
appearedin morethanonepublicationwhile theregulationrequiresthatthepetitionerauthor"scholarly
articles"in the plural. The evidencediscussedaboveis alsonot indicativeof or consistentwith
sustainednationalacclaimor a level of expertiseindicatingthat the petitioneris one of that small
Page24
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof hisfield. Pursuantto thereasoningin Kazarian.5% F.3d
at 1122,the field's responseto this documentmay be and will be consideredin the final merits
determination. The petitionerprovidesno information relatingto the document'simpact in his field,
nor of any significant responseto his researchto indicatethat it amountsto a relativebreakthroughin
thefield.
TheAAO reversedthedirector'sfavorabledeterminationasit relatestothedisplayof hisworkcriterion
under8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii),asthepetitionerfailedto providesufficientevidenceaccompanymg
the foreign languagedocuments. While the evidence,if accompaniedby individually certified
translations,wouldshowthe petitioner'swork wasdisplayedwithin variousexhibitionsat theChina
NationalMuseumof FineArts andat the ChineseCalligraphyandPaintingExhibition,he failedto
establishthesignificanceof anyof theseexhibitionsor showcasesthatmightestablishthatthedisplay
of work atsucha venuewascommensuratewith achievingsustainednationalor internationalacclaim
andthatthisdisplayof hiswork setshim significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield ata national
or internationallevel. Theonly evidencethatappearsto speakto thesignificanceof theexhibitionor
showcaserelatesto the SecondBeijing InternationalCalligraphyBiennale. With regardto this
exhibition,thepetitioneronlysubmittedphotographsof whatis allegedlythedisplayof hisworkatthis
exhibition. In comparison,thecalligraphicworksof whoprovidedtwo expertletters
on thepetitioner'sbehalf.havebeencollectedby nationalmuseumsratherthansimply beingon display
at short term lesserexhibitions or showcases. The petitioner's evidenceis clearly insufficient to
demonstratethatthedisplayof hisworkatartisticexhibitionsor showcasesisamongthosein thetopof
hisfield.
The petitionerfailed to establishthat he hascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield. Thepetitionerfailedto demonstratethatthe
other calligraphistsnotedin the evidencewere performingsimilar work at the top level of the
petitioner's held. The petitionermust demonstratethe high-endearningsnationally of thosein his
occupationperformingsimilar work at the top level of thefield. Withoutsuchevidence,hecannot
establishthathis remunerationconfirmsthatheenjoysthestatusasoneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisentotheverytopof theirfieldof endeavor.
In thismatter,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedwith relevantprobativeevidencethathisachievements
atthetimeof filing werecommensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimasacalligraphy
artist, or being amongthat small percentageat the very top of the field of endeavor. The submitted
evidenceis not indicativeof a "careerof acclaimedwork in the field" ascontemplatedby Congress.
H.R. Rep.No. 101-723,59 (Sept.19, 1990). The conclusionthe AAO reachesby consideringthe
evidenceto meeteachcategoryof evidenceat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3) separatelyis consistentwith a
reviewof theevidencein theaggregate.Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguish
thepetitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewho hasrisento thevery top of the Geldof endeavor.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). While the petitionerneed not demonstratethat there is no one more
accomplishedthanhimselfto qualify for theclassificationsought,it appearsthatthevery top of his
fieldof endeavorisfarabovethelevelbehasattained.
Page25
lII. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
who hasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Reviewof the record,however,doesnot establishthat the petitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfasa
calligraphyartist to suchan extentthat he may be said to haveachievedsustainednationalor
internationalacclaimor to be within thesmallpercentageat thevery top of his field. Theevidence
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as an artist, but is not persuasivethat the petitioner's
achievementssethimsignificantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybedenied
by the AAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identifyall of the groundsfor denialin the initial
decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc.v.UnitedStates,229F.Supp.2dat 1043,affd, 345F.3dat683;
seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewon adenovo
basis).
Theburdenof proof in visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.