dismissed EB-1A Case: Ceramics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
dentifying data deleted co 
prevent clearly unwarnW& 
invasion of persoaal prkaey 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 2 1 2005 
EAC 05 142 51071 
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 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
l'JbL+ 
kobert P. Wiemann, Director 
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 on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
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. Q 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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 his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. Q 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 16, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
"Ceramist." The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record reflects 
that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since August 2001. Given the length of time between 
the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is reasonable to expect her to have 
earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a 
reputation as an artist in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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 
Page 3 
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 recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate allegedly issued by the "Australian High Commission'' stating: "IN THE 
FIRST ART CRAFTS SHOW HELD BY AUSTRALIAN HIGN [sic] COMMISSION IN 2000, YOUR WORK 
OF 'FEMALE' HAVE [sic] BEEN AWARDED THE BEST FWE DESIGNING [sic] WORK." Aside from the 
misspelling of "high," this certificate includes two grammatical errors. There is no evidence demonstrating that 
this show actually took place or that the petitioner's work was featured there. The exact date and location of 
this show have not been identified. Nor has the petitioner submitted evidence of an art brochure from the 
show or media publicity surrounding the event. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate allegedly issued in 2001 by the "NATIONAL ARTS GALLERY" 
stating that she was recognized as "The Best Artist of The Year (Sculpture Group)." The bottom of the 
certificate includes a signature space marked "SIGNED:," but no signature appears in this blank space. The 
petitioner fails to offer an explanation for the omission of an official signature. 
The petitioner also submitted an undated certificate that states: 
THE NATIONAL ART AWARD 
THIS CERTIFICATE IS HONOURLY AWARDED TO [the petitioner] FOR HIS CONTIBUTION [sic] 
IN PROMOTING TRADITIONAL ART BY DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE 
Aside from the misspelling of "contribution," this certificate incorrectly refers to the petitioner as a male. Further, 
we note that although the wording on the certificate is completely legible, for some inexplicable reason, the 
Department of Culture seal is completely illegible. 
Regarding the multiple deficiencies related to the preceding certificates, 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 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. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate allegedly issued by the "THE PIUVATE GALLERY FINE ARTS" 
stating that the petitioner received a "CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION" in 1996. The petitioner does not 
explain how receiving a "CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION constitutes recognition for excellence in 
ceramics. Further, this award reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a "CERTIFICATE OF 
EXCELLENCY" allegedly issued in 2000 by the "NATIONAL ARTS DEVELOPING ASSOCIATION, 
SINGAPORE." The certificate bears a computerized signature from "GUO CHEN, SECRETARY ." The 
petitioner also submitted an undated certificate allegedly issued by the "Asia-Europe Foundation Philippine 
Association" for "BEST ARTIST IN SPREADING CULTURE AND ART." There is no evidence showing that 
these awards reflect national or international recognition rather than organizational recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted a "CERTIFICATE OF ACHlEVEMENT . . . 1997 National Arts Design Award." 
The organization that issued this award, however, has not been identified. There is no documentation from the 
awarding entity or the print media to establish that this award is a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for artistic excellence. 
Simply receiving an award certificate with the word "national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive 
criterion. 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 to 
establish that her award certificates enjoy significant national or international stature. The record includes no 
such documentation. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has received any awards 
subsequent to February 2001; therefore, whatever prior level of acclaim she had previously earned has not 
been sustained. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJCield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted sixteen images of what are alleged to be her artistic creations. Without further 
evidence, it cannot be determined that the petitioner's works are among those shown. Nevertheless, the plain 
language of this criterion requires the petitioner to provide evidence demonstrating that her work has been 
displayed "at artistic exhibitions or showcases." In this case, the specific names and locations of the 
exhibitions and showcases that featured the petitioner's works have not been identified. In fact, there is no 
contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or art brochure) demonstrating the petitioner's 
involvement in any art exhibition or showcase in the U.S., Malaysia, or any other country. 
We find no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's works have been displayed at significant national 
venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's works have been featured along side those of artists 
who enjoy national or international reputations. Furthermore, the petitioner has not demonstrated her regular 
participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the display of her work alone. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits what she alleges is her "Diploma from Institute of World." Aside from 
being unaccompanied by a certified English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.2(b)(3), there is no indication that this diploma fulfills any of the regulatory at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
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, Znc. 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. 3 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed.