dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Folk Singer

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 0 2 2~ 
EAC 03 039 50575 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
bir"u-- 
&obert P. Wiema n, Chief 
Administrative Appeals office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, reopened the matter on Service motion in order to allow an opportunity to respond to a request 
for additional evidence and subsequently denied the petition again. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
ultimately determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not overcome 
the bases of denial. 
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. § 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. 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a Chinese folk 
singer. 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 that, she claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a Certificate of Award issued by an unidentified entity for 
"Outstanding Achievement for Supporting China Flood Relief7 on September 13, 1998 at the "New 
York Service Center" and a Participation Certificate from the Organizing Committee of the April 
Spring Friendship Art Festival, D.P.R. of Korea, expressing appreciation for participation at festival 
on an unknown date. The petitioner also submitted additional foreign-language certificates with no 
translations, asserting that translations would follow. The director requested evidence of the 
significance and scope of the awards. In response, the petitioner submitted copies of awards not 
previously claimed. Neither counsel nor the petitioner explains why these awards were not 
submitted initially. The new awards are as follows: 
1. A June 1990 certificate purporting to confirm the petitioner as the winner of 
the 1993 1' vocalist contest in Hernan Province; 
2. ~une 1991 certificate from the Chinese Ministry of Education purporting to 
confirm the petitioner's Grand Trophy in the 1993 National Vocalist Contest 
in the category of "ethnical singer;" 
3. A 1991 certificate from the China Musician Association awarding the 
petitioner a "top level trophy in the 1991 nationwide "Broadcasted New Song" 
contest and evaluation; 
4. A June 1991 certificate from the Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film 
and Television awarding the petitioner as Silver Screen Trophy as winner of 
the Singer Contest; 
5. A March 1992 certificate from the Chinese State Administration of Radio, 
Film and Television awarding the petitioner a Silver Screen Trophy as winner 
Singer Contest and 
nationwide new cultural theory study result." 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
The petitioner offers no explanation for why two certificates predate by two or more years the awards 
they purport to confirm. Moreover, the petitioner offers no explanation as to why the Seventh Annual 
National Young Singer Contest took place almost one year prior to the Sixth Annual National Young 
Singer Contest. We acknowledge that we are relying on the dates contained in the translations. The 
translations, however, are certified as accurate by 
 Either the certificates have 
diminished evidentiary value due to the serious discrepancies in a es noted in this paragraph or the 
translations have diminished evidentiary value due to inaccuracies. 
The director noted that the initial awards were regional and that the petitioner had failed to submit the 
requested evidence regarding the significance of the awards submitted in response to the request for 
additional evidence. Thus, the director concluded that the petitioner had not established that she meets 
this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates the awards listed above and asserts that the director rejected these awards 
"without reason." On the contrary, the director specifically stated that the record lacked evidence 
regarding the eligibility criteria for the awards, the number of awards issued and the criteria used to 
grant the awards. The petitioner does not submit this evidence on appeal. 
We concur with the director. The record lacks evidence regarding the pool of competitors for each 
award or evidence indicative of national or international recognition such as media coverage of the 
award selections. The record contains no evidence regarding the significance of the China Central 
Cultural Management and Study Center, which issued an award to the petitioner in 2005, 12 years 
after the petitioner entered the United States. Regardless, the award was issued in 2005, over two 
years after the petition was filed. As such, it cannot serve as evidence of the petitioner's eligibility at 
that time. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 197 1). 
The Hernan Province award is clearly a local award. The Silver Screen awards are age-based, and 
cannot serve to set the petitioner apart from the most experienced and renowned members of her 
field. The record contains no evidence regarding the significance of the New York Service Center or 
Spring Festival certificates of appreciation. Regardless, they appear to be expressions of 
appreciation for participating rather than nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for 
excellence in the field. 
Finally, the date discrepancies discussed above cast doubt on either the original documents or the 
competence of the translator. Either way, the credibility or accuracy of the evidence submitted to 
establish the petitioner's awards is questionable. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 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. Id. at 591-92. The 
petitioner has not resolved the above inconsistencies. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she 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 classzJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa y translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted what appear to be foreign language newspaper articles with no 
translations and no indication of the publication in which the articles appeared or when. Rather, 
counsel indicated that translations would be forthcoming. The director issued a request for the 
complete translations and evidence that the publications were major media. In response, the petitioner 
submitted summary translations of articles that appear in 1999 and 2000 in Chin-Bao, the Mai-Hua 
Business News and the World Journal and an article credited to the People's Daily on an illegible date 
and posted on a website with an illegible address on the copy submitted. The translator asserts that 
Chin-Bao is a Chinese language newspaper circulating in the United States; the Mai-Hua Business 
News is a Chinese-language newspaper based in Rockville, Maryland and the World Journal is "the 
most popular Chinese News Paper publishing and circulating in USA." The first article in Chin-Bao 
only pictures the petitioner with other performers at a Chinese New Years celebration. The second 
article in Chin-Bao reviews the Weill Recital Hall concert in honor of Premier Zhu Enlai, which took 
place a year and seven months prior to the review. The article in the Mai-Hua Business News appears 
to be a promotional piece for a performance at a local community college. The World Journal article is 
about an event to celebrate the award of the Olympics to Beijing. The article includes a single sentence 
about the petitioner. Finally, the article credited to the People's Daily is about the concert in honor of 
Premiere Zhu Enlai and includes only a single sentence about the petitioner. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the articles appeared in major media 
or that they specifically covered the petitioner's work. Ultimately, the director determined that the 
evidence was not indicative of national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
articles "refer to the petitioner and her accomplishments and they are reported in major Chinese media 
organs." 
Counsel is not persuasive. The regulation does not merely require published references to the alien. 
Rather, the petitioner must provide evidence of published materials "about the alien." It is inherent to 
the field of performing arts to receive brief mentions in local reviews of projects in which the performer 
was involved. Such materials are not primarily about the performer. The only article primarily about 
the petitioner is the article in the Mai-Hua Business News. This "article," however, appears to be a 
promotional press release rather than independent journalistic coverage. Regardless, the publication 
appears to be a local Maryland Chinese-language publication. Similarly, the other U.S. ~hinese- 
language publications have not been demonstrated to be major media. In general, newspapers 
published in a language that the majority of the population cannot comprehend are not considered 
major media such that coverage in these publications is indicative of national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled "Expression of Emotions in a Vocal Art Performance." As 
stated above, the petitioner also submitted a 2005 certificate from the Chinese Cultural Theory and 
Practice Evaluation Committee of the China Central Cultural Management and Study Center awarding 
the paper "First Prize." The article, however, begins on page 1 and bears no journal name. As noted by 
the director, the petitioner provided no evidence that the article was published. On appeal, counsel 
notes that the petitioner submitted the article and the award. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) specifically requires the submission of evidence of 
scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Without evidence 
that the article was published and that it appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media, the petitioner cannot establish that she meets this criterion. The petitioner has not 
identified 'the publication, provided evidence that her article appeared in the publication or submitted 
evidence that the publication has a national circulation. Moreover, the petitioner has not established 
that the article was published prior to the date of filing.. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion is applicable to the visual arts. The petitioner is a performing artist; appearing on stage is 
inherent to her occupation. Not every performance is an artistic exhibition designed to showcase the 
performer's art. Counsel asserts that the petitioner performed at Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center. 
The petitioner submitted a program for a February 28, 1998, 2:00 pm concert at the Weill Recital Hall 
at Carnegie Hall in honor of Zhou Enlai and a photograph of her singing on stage. As noted by counsel 
on appeal, the director acknowledged the evidence but noted that it was one performance in 1998. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that her single afternoon performance occurred on the main stage 
at Carnegie Hall, as opposed to a more intimate venue available for rental at Carnegie ~a11.~ The only 
evidence-that the etiioner performed at Lincoln Center is an alleged photograph of the performance, a 
letter fro a, President of Columbia that he has successfully 
promoted concerts at Lincoln Center and a letter from a musician who asserts that the 
2 
 According to Carnegie Hall's website, w-.caregiehall.org, the Weill Recital Hall seats 268 people, as 
opposed to the main stage at the Isaac Stem Auditorium that seats 2,804. w he Weill Recital Hall is 
characterized as an "intimate auditorium ideal for recitals, chamber music concerts, symposia, discussions, 
master classes, and more." 
petitioner performed at Lincoln Center in 1996. The record does not contain the program from the 
petitioner's performance at Lincoln Center or confirmation from Lincoln Center. Mr does not 
assert that he promoted the petitioner's performance at Lincoln Center and  rears to have no 
official affiliation with Lincoln Center. Finally, there is nothing about the photograph that 
demonstrates the petitioner is performing at Lincoln Center. As such, the petitioner has not established 
that she actually performed there and, if she did, whether she was a featured performer at one of their 
major auditoriums. 
The remaining programs and promotional materials in the record are for performances at cultural events 
and an Indian casino. The petitioner has not established that these performances can be distinguished 
from the type of performances inherent to her field such that they can be considered exhibitions 
showcasing the petitioner's art. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
While the petitioner performed at the Weill Recital Hall and claims to have performed at Lincoln 
Center, she did not provide box office receipts for these performances. Thus, she has not established 
that she meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
singer 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 indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a singer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.