dismissed EB-1A Case: Carpentry

PUBLIC COPY 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent ciei~iy unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
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. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
bJ&~vd f;~@hifllL 
+- 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed with a finding of fiaud. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On June 7, 2006, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he submitted falsified material in support of 
his petition. 
The AAO's June 7, 2006 notice stated: 
You signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the 
evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) calls for the submission of published materials 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. In your June 24, 2005 response to the director's request for evidence, you 
submitted what is alleged to be an article about you entitled "Government hires renowned carpenter [the 
petitioner] to hold carpentry workshop for Acehnese." The title of ths article, whch makes reference to 
the people of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, contradicts the text of the article, whch discusses an 
unemployment problem in Warsaw, Poland. After further investigation, it has been determined that ths 
article was a fraudulent submission. The AAO was able to obtain the original article at 
htt~://www.indonesia-relief.org. The original article, entitled "Carpentry Workshop To be Held for 
Acehnese," which did not mention your name, is attached to this notice. By altering this article and 
misrepresenting it as an article about your past accomplishments, you have attempted to obtain a visa by 
fraud and the willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and 
attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
The above derogatory information indicates that you have misrepresented your past accomplishments. 
For this reason, we cannot accord any of your other claims any weight. 
If you choose to contest the AAO's finding, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancies described above. 
Page 3 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5), the petitioner was also requested to submit the original 
versions of three photocopied documents submitted with the petition. In accordance with the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. 95 103.2(b)(5) and (16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 12 weeks in whch to respond to the AAO's 
notice. 
The petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's notice. Regarding the petitioner's failure to submit the 
requested original documents, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5) provides: "If the requested original, 
other than one issued by the Service, is not submitted within 12 weeks, the petition or application shall be 
denied or revoked." Accordingly, this petition cannot be approved. 
Section 21 2(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willllly misrepresenting a material fact, 
. seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or adrmssion into 
the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting a falsified article, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit 
provided under the Act using a fraudulent document. Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent 
and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our finding that the aforementioned article was a 
falsification, we affirm our finding of fraud. This finding of fraud shall be considered in any future 
proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the 
remaining documentation. As stated above, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
See Matter of Ho at 591. The remaining documentation and the director's bases of denial will be discussed 
below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Page 4 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in hs or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 1, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a carpenter. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an "Extraordinary Achievements Certificate" allegedly issued to him by the 
American Polish Foundation (2000) and a "Merit Certificate" allegedly issued to him by the Victoria and 
Albert Museum (1982). On June 7, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5), the AAO 
requested the petitioner to submit the original versions of the aforementioned certificates. The petitioner's 
failure to comply with the AAO's request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
Even without the original documents, we find that these awards reflect institutional recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. The record contains no evidence such as the publicity surrounding the 
petitioner's awards or other evidence to show that the awards command a substantial level of recognition 
beyond the presenting organizations. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive 
documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must 
provide adequate evidence showing that the awards presented under ths criterion enjoy significant national or 
international stature. In this case, no such evidence has been submitted. The petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
Page 5 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy ths criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted his membership card for the European Carpenters Society. On June 7, 2006, 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(5), the AAO requested the petitioner to submit the original 
version of the membership card. The petitioner's failure to comply with the AAO's request constitutes 
grounds for denial of the petition. 
Moreover, the record includes no evidence of the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements 
for this society. There is no indication that admission to membership in this organization required 
outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in 
consideration of his admission to membership. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet thls criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication presumably should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not ordinarily earn acclaim at the national or international level fi-om a local publication or fi-om a publication in a 
language that most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifL as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers. ' 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be an article about hmself entitled "Government hes renowned 
carpenter [the petitioner] to hold carpentry workshop for Acehnese." As discussed previously, the title of ths 
article, whch makes reference to the people of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, contradicts the text of the article, which 
discusses an unemployment problem in Warsaw, Poland. Further, the name and circulation of the publication in 
whch this article allegedly appeared have not been provided. After fbrther investigation, the AAO determined 
that ths article was a fi-audulent submission. On June 7, 2006, the AAO requested the petitioner to submit to 
submit independent and objective evidence to overcome the AAO's finding. The petitioner failed to respond 
to AAO's notice. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has been the primary subject of published material in major 
media. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the$eld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
1 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted several images of what are alleged to be lus woodworking creations. Without 
further evidence, it cannot be determined if the works shown are those of the petitioner. Further, there is no 
evidence identifying the-specific venues where the petitioner's works were featured. For these reasons, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on September 6, 2005. On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, 
the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of ths 
date, more than one year later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's acluevements set him significantly above 
almost all others in hs field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record includes no such evidence. For this additional reason, the petition may not be 
approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fi-aud. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted a fraudulent document in an 
effort to mislead Citizenship and Immigration Services and the AAO on elements 
material to his eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of the 
United States.