dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Martial Arts

<:C' ~-- " ." 
1-_:" , 
Plm1 ,If' COpy 
DATE JUN 1 8 2012 
IN RE: Pelitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(h)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you helieve 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 reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1·290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific 
requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with 
the AAO. Plcase be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~ 
Perry Rhew ~ 
Chief. Administrative Appeals Of rice 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on September 24, 2010. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on October 25, 2010. On May 2, 2012, the AAO issued a 
notice, advising the petitioner of the derogatory information in the record and affording her 15 days to 
respond. As of the date of this decision, more than a month later, the AAO has not received any 
responsive documents or explanation from the petitioner or counsel. The appeal will be dismissed with 
a finding of material misrepresentation. 
I. PROCEDURE AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, specifically, in the 
field of Chinese martial arts, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), ~ U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(1)(A). In his September 24, 2010 decision, the director determined that 
the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 
~ C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). The implementing regulation at ~ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel has submitted a brief, asserting that the director erroneously concluded that the 
petitioner does not meet the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i), 
the membership in associations criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii), the published material about 
the alien criterion under ~ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the original contributions of major significance 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v). Counsel has filed no additional evidence. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has, by willfully misrepresenting a 
material fact, sought to procure a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or 
other benefit provided under the Act. See section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act. The AAO further finds that 
the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
AAO finds that the petitioner has not presented at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has 
not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and she has 
not shown sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.S(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, 
the AAO dismisses the petitioner's appeal with a finding of material misrepresentation. 
Page 3 
II. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL 
A. Misrepresentation 
The petitioner has willfully misrepresented material facts by submitting (1) a March 31, 2007 letter 
that discusses the petitioner's "innovative" Chinese martial and the letter as 
having been authored President of 
and Vice President of 
the purported 
at 
(3) uncertified English translatIons of excerpts 
indicating that the petitioner had participated in the 
B. Eligibility under Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act 
The AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the classification sought. 
III. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
J. 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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
IV. MISREPRESENTATION 
A. Legal Authority 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully 
misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other 
benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that the 
alien willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of obtaining an 
immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288, 289-90 
(RIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished tram 
accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See Matter of Tijam, 
22 I&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). 
To be considered materiaL the misrepresentation must be one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry 
which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which might well have resulted in a proper 
determination that he be excluded." Matter ofNg, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition 
proceedings, he or she must determine: (1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation 
to an authorized official of the United States government; (2) that the misrepresentation was willfully 
made; and (3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Matter of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (B[A 
1(54); Malia ofL-L-, 9 [&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 [&N Dec. at 288. 
B. Analysis 
Beyond upholding the director's decision to deny the petition, the AAO is making a formal finding of 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact that should be considered in any future proceeding where 
the petitioner's admissibility is an issue. I On May 2, 2012, in accordance with the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO issued a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information, 
that she submitted false reference letter, dated March 31, 2007, purportedly from 
(2) a false reference letter, dated March 31, 2007, purportedl y 
i!ii!!~~ and (3) uncertified translations 
~ petiti<me:r's participation in the 
The petitioner certified and filed, through electronic filing, the 
Form [-140 petitIon, thus thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the 
evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." In addition to certifying under the penalty of 
perjury that the evidence supporting the petition was true s initial 
to USC[S also included an undated statement, entitled 
in which she summarized her purported accomplishments in the field of Chinese martial arts. 
j It is important to note that while it may present the opportunity to enter an administrative finding of willful material 
mi~rcprcscntati()n, the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding an alien inadmissible. See Matter of 
0, X I&N Dec. 295 (BIA t 959). Inslcad. the alien may be found inadmissible at a later date when he or she subsequently 
applies for admission into the United States or applies for adJ'ustment of status to that of a permanent resident. See sections 
212(a) and 245(a) of Ihe Act, 8 U.s.c. §§ 1182(a) and 1255(a). 
Page 5 
As the derogatory findings relate to the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.S(h)(3)(i), (iii) 
and (v), they are material to this proceeding. The AAO's May 2, 2012 notice of derogatory 
information stated: 
~"llllL"1 includes a March 31, 2007 
The signature on 
SIgnature that appears 
of an 
and extending the invitation to 
(2) a blank copy of the 2006 
certificate of participation that does 
not st your name or any name. Moreover, the logos that 
purportedly make up the letterhead on this March 31, 2007 letter are clearly cut and 
pasted onto the letter. 
Based on the above, thc AAO has determined that the March 31, 2007 
the petitioner's "innovative and instilled new life to 
authored by In short, 
the petitioner submitted a reference letter that contains false information. 
Additionally, the AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
[AJlthough both you, in your statement, and 
letter claimed that had won a bronze 
you 
from that competition that lists your name. Moreover, based on independent online 
research, a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer found 
that the winners in the events listed on your competition registration, events 98 and 108 
See ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!~~~~iI accessed April 
this website, 
_ was originally known 
the AAO has determined that the March 31, 2007 reference letter, purportedly 
which discusses the petitioner's "new 
style movements . with exquisite postures methods" and her competitive history, 
contains false information. Similarly, the AAO has found that the petitioner's undated statement also 
contains false information as to her competitive history. In short, the AAO has concluded that the 
petitioner submitted a reference letter and a statement that contain false information. 
Finally, the AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
countries. 
paragra[lh 
that the 
'-'11:~m'" translation of a paragraph published in the 
states that 
yesterday at 
aw.'u" one thousand competitors" a mn."h,OT 
You have, however, also an uncertified English translation of a 
on October 20, 2006, that states blished in the 
- the same tournament 
'",,,,,,,eu on December 18,2006 in the newspaper - "was held yesterday 
at and "was attended by almost one thousand 
competitors" from a number of countries. Your evidence does not explain why the two 
publications reporting on the same competition gave a different time and location for 
the same competition. 
Based on the above, the AAO has determined that the two newspaper excerpts contain false 
information relating to the petitioner's competitive history and media coverage. In short, the AAO has 
concluded that the petitioner submitted two newspaper excerpts that contain false information. 
By the petitioner submitting two reference letters, a statement and two newspaper excerpts, all 
containing falsc information relating to the petitioner's receipt of awards and prizes, as required under 
the regulation at X C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material about the petitioner, as required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.S(h)(3)(iii), and/or the petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v), it appears that the petitioner 
has sought to obtain a visa by willful misrepresentation of a material fact. With regard to this 
derogatory information, 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 ofHo, 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. Id. at 591. Because the petitioner submitted false documents 
misrepresenting her achievements, media coverage and contributions, the AAO cannot accord any of 
the petitioner's other claims any weight. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 15 days (plus 3 
days for mailing) to submit evidence to overcome the derogatory information cited above. The 
petitioner failed to provide a response to the notice advising her of the derogatory information outlined 
above. In short, the petitioner has offered no evidence to overcome the AAO's findings that the two 
March 31, 2007 reference letters, the petitioner's undated statement and the two newspaper excerpts 
contain false information and that the petitioner submitted false documents that misrepresent her 
achievements, media coverage and contributions in the field of Chinese martial arts. 
Page 7 
The record shows that the petitioner submitted false documents, a finding that the petitioner has failed 
to overcome despite being advised of the derogatory information in the AAO's May 2, 2012 notice. 
An immigration officer will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits evidence that contains false 
information. See section 204(b) of the Act. In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not 
reason to question the credibility of an alien or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer 
Enterprises Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding the AAO's finding that 
evidence in that matter was not credible). However, if a petition includes serious errors and 
discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an officer provides 
an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts 
stated in the petition are not true. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
First, the petitioner submitted two March 31, 2007 reference letters, an undated statement and two 
newspaper excerpts that contain false information. A misrepresentation can be made to a government 
official in an oral interview, on the face of a written application or petition, or by submitting evidence 
containing false information. INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 (April 30, 1991). Here, 
the petitioncr"s submission of the preceding documents in support of the Form 1-140 petition 
constitutes a false representation to a government official. 
Second, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. The petItIOner 
certified and filed the Form 1-140 petition, through electronic filing, thus certifying under penalty of 
perjury that the petition and the submitted evidence are all true and correct. See section 287(b) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1357(b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). More specifically, the signature portion of 
the Form 1-140, at part 8, requires the petitioner to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under 
penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence 
submitted with it are all true and correct." Further, the petitioner submitted an undated statement, 
entitled in which the petitioner stated that she won a 
bronze medal at the 
_ sponsored by the s 
May 2, 2012 notice of derogatory information, not only not submitted an award 
certificate from that competition, but based on independent online research, a USCIS officer found that 
the events listed on the events 98 and 108 - were 
See 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
access(:d April 27, 2012 and 
certified Form 1-140 
the AAO finds that the affirmation, made under penalty of perjury, and her undated statement, 
petitioner willfully and knowingly made the misrepresentation. 
Third. the evidence is material to the petitioner's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. KllIlliYS v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cuts off a line of inquiry which is relevant to 
the eligibility criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa petition. See 
Matter of NIi, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. 
As the false documents relate to the petitioner's eligibility for the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (v), the documents are material to this proceeding. Accordingly, the AAO 
concludes that the misrepresentation was material to the petitioner's eligibility. 
By filing the instant petition, submitting documents that contain false information on the petitioner's 
achievements, media coverage and contributions in the field of Chinese martial arts, the petitioner has 
sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Because the petitioner has failed to provide competent independent and objective evidence to 
overcome, fully and persuasively, the AAO's finding that she submitted falsified documentation, the 
AAO affirms the finding that the petitioner has willfully misrepresented a material fact. This finding 
of willful material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility 
IS an Issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the derogatory information discussed in above seriously compromises the credibility of the 
petitioner and the remaining documentation. As previously discussed, 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, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Nevertheless, 
the AAO will address the petitioner's failure to demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be 
satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
V. ELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 203(B)(I)(A) OF THE ACT 
A. Legal Authority 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 WIst Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 20W, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although the court upheld the 
Page <) 
AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 2 With respect to the criteria at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "tinal merits detennination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the AAO will review the evidence under the 
plain language of the regulatory requirements. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence 
showing a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award, or evidence under 
any of the ten regulatory criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirements. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
R Translations 
At the outset, the AAO notes that the petitioner has filed a number of foreign language documents, 
including newspaper publications and certificates of award, but she has failed to provide the proper 
translations for these documents, as required under the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 103.2(b )(3), which 
provides "[ajny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a 
full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English." The petitioner has failed to provide infonnation relating to the identity or competency of the 
translator(s), or information on whether the English translations are complete and accurate. Without 
certified translations, the foreign language documents have no evidentiary value. 
C Evidentiary Criteria 3 
Documentation oj the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition in June 2007, he claimed that the petitioner meets the 
prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), because the 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
heyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
1 Counsel docs not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
Page 10 
petitioner was 
categories, at the 
~tplace 
_ "at 
In support of his assertion that the petitioner 
2007 letter not on official letterhead from 
arts events, 
Page II 
Notwithstanding the abovementioned evidence, the petitioner has not provided sufficient credible 
evidence showing that any of her prizes or awards constitute nationally or internationally recognized 
"W"f(j, for excellence in the sport of martial arts. In his 2008 letter not on official 
the stated that the_ 
15 countries and areas." 
competition awarded The petitioner, however, has failed to provide 
evidence relating to the number of people who participated in her event category or the winner 
selection criteria for the category. Regardless, the petitioner did not~y or even 
secondary evidence of any award at this competition in Maryland. Instead, __ purports to 
affirm the petitioner's finish at this competition. The nonexistence or unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Moreover, as discussed above, 
USCIS obtained the online results from this competition which list different individuals as earning 
medals in her category. The petitioner has not resolved this inconsistency with independent objective 
evidence. Thus, the AAO concludes that the petitioner's claim to have won this award is false. 
Moreover, 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 
ofHo, I <J I&N Dec. at 59l. 
- in which the I-'~''''L'H~' am;geary 1l1llL>llt;U 
categories - "attracted more than 1,200 competitors from different countries," and that 
the competition awarded "only 6 first-place prizes to adult men and women winners." Again, neither 
the letter nor any other evidence in the record indicates number of participants or the winner 
selection criteria in each event category. In does not appear to be an official of 
the competition and he does not explain his authority to provide information 
other than his unsubstantiated claim to have attended them. Similarly, although 
stated in his April 28, 2007 letter that the 
in which the petitioner allegedly placed first in the 
(8) event categories - had "[olver 1000 rom 
ift'''''lll countries, nor any of the petitioner's evidence indicates the number of 
participants in the two event categories or the winner selection criteria for the categories. 
stated above, the petitioner has submitted fraudulent information about one of the 
Specifically, the petitioner provided the uncertified English translation ~ 
np,,,·.m,, on December 18, 2006, that states that the _ 
"was held yesterday at " and "was 
attended by almost one thousand competitors" from a number however, 
also provided the uncertified English UdJJ,.,ILHJ II 
Duilv on October 20, 2006, that states that 
the same tournament discussed on December in the newspaper World Journal - "was held 
yesterday at and "was attended by almost one thousand 
competitors" from a number of countries. The petitioner's evidence does not explain why the two 
publications reported on the same competition gave a different time and location for the same 
Page 12 
competItIon. The petitioner provided inconsistent evidence and "it is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the 
conflicting accounts [or evidence), absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in 
fact. lies. will not sutlice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner, 
however. has provided no such evidence to explain or reconcile the inconsistent and fraudulent 
evidence. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because she has not 
submitted credible documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the sport of martial arts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation oj the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sou/iht, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, he claimed that the petitioner meets the membership in 
associations criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). In support of his assertion that 
the r meets this' counsel filed: May 28, 2000 appointment letter, issued 
by 
stating that 
president of 
ac(;onap,mi(;d by an uncertified translation; (6) a USA National 
,,,,,eu on December 
President 
certificate of good standing, issued on December 18, 
certificate of membership issued on November 30, 
None of the petitioner's evidence, however, shows that any of the above associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members. Indeed, the petitioner has provided no evidence showing 
the membership criteria for any of the associations to she 
purported May 28, 2000 appointment letter, 
provided no insights as to why the petitioner was aplJoint<:d 
within the organization. Moreover, an appointment to a committee is not a membership in an 
althou counsel contended in his brief filed in support of the visa petition that 
is regarded as the highest level associations in the field, which 
oul:stslnding skill [sic) and accomplished conspicuous success in martial 
arts." no evidence in the record supports this assertion. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
ILJ I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
mf,mlJershllp selection criteria for either 
As such, the 
'ganiz:ation requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Finally, the petitioner has filed a number of foreign language documents, including a May 28, 2000 
appointment letter, membership card and identity card, but she has failed to provide the required 
certified translations for these documents, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Specifically, the petitioner has failed to provide information relating to the identity or competency of 
the translator(s), or information on whether the English translations are complete and accurate. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because she has not 
submitted documentation of her 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. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relatill!.: 10 the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the litle, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 
When counsel initially filed the visa pelilion, he asserted that the petitioner meets the published 
material about the alien criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In support of this 
assertion. counsel filed evidence that ( the s name was to be included in the book 
petitioner 
(2) the pettttonier's 
newspaper n/Lrn,d on 
mentioned once in a paragraph published in the newspaper Sin!.: Tao 
and (4) the magazine Genesis Monthly published an article about the 
The AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion because of the IUIIU'", Ill)!, 
~~nce to find that the 
constitutes published to a 
December 6. 2005 memorandum from the book's editorial board, the book had not yet been published. 
Indeed, the record contains no evidence showing that the book was published as of the date of filing or, 
in fact, ever. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved 
at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Kaligbak. 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971). Also, the petitioner has not provided any excerpt or 
pages of the book. As such, the AAO cannot conclude that the book is about the petitioner relating to 
her work in the sport of martial arts. Moreover, the petitioner has provided no information on the 
Page 14 
publisher. As such, the AAO cannot find that the book's publisher constitutes a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 
Second, the AAO cannot conclude that the one paragraph published in the newspaper World Journal, 
on constitutes published material about the petitioner. The paragraph has three 
sentences, the petitioner's name once among six other names. The paragraph is not 
about the petitioner; rather, it is about a competition, in which the petitioner was one of "almost one 
thousand competitors." Also, although counsel stated in his brief filed in support of the visa petition 
that the World Journal "is the largest Chinese newspaper in North America," no evidence in the record 
supports this claim. The petitioner has also failed to indicate the author of the paragraph, as required 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to provide the 
proper translation of this foreign language document, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ J03.2(b)(3). Specifically, the petitioner has failed to provide information relating to the identity or 
competency of the translator, or information on whether the English translations are complete and 
accurate. 
Third, the AAO cannot conclude that the one paragraph published in the newspaper Sing Tao Daily, on 
constitutes published material about the petitioner. The paragraph has four 
sentences. and mentions the petitioner's name once among six other names. The paragraph is not 
about the petitioner; rather, it is about a competition, in which the petitioner was one of "almost one 
thousand competitors." Also, although counsel stated in his brief filed in support of the visa petition 
that the Sing Tao Daily is "circulated in 100 cities around the world," no evidence in the record 
supports this claim. The petitioner has also failed to indicate the author of the paragraph, as required 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to provide the 
proper translation of this foreign language document, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, the petitioner has failed to provide information relating to the identity or 
competency of the translator, or information on whether the English translation is complete and 
accurate. Moreover, as stated above, the petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies between this 
article and the one in the World Journal. 
Fourth, although article is about the petitioner, the AAO does not 
have sufficient evidence to conclude is a professional or major trade publication 
or other major media. Counsel's assertion in his brief filed in response to the director's Request for 
Evidence that the magazine "is a mass media magazine which is very popular in New York City, 
especially in Chinese minority communities," is not supported by the evidence in the record. As stated 
above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Dba igbena , 191&N 
Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
at 506. Regardless, a publication with circulation limited to one city that is not published in a 
predominant national language is not major media. The petitioner has also failed to indicate the author 
of the paragraph, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to provide the proper translation of this foreign language 
document, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, the petitioner has 
Page 15 
failed to provide information relating to the identity or competency of the translator, or information on 
whether the English translation is complete and accurate. Finally, it is well established that the 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. As such, for eligibility purposes, the 
AAO will not consider an article published in January 2008, when the instant petition was filed six 
months earlier, in June 2007. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because she has not 
submitted credible published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artzstlC. athletic. or business-related 
col1lrihlltions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, he asserted that the petitioner meets the original 
contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), because 
she "has tried to combine firmness and softness and created her own style, which instilled new life to 
a form of . .. provided a 
March 1, 2007 tter allegedly from 
above the signature on this letter, however, 
.. that appears on the April 15, 2006 invitation and the blank certificate of participatIOn dl~;CUSSe,d 
above. Moreover, the logos that purportedly make up the letterhead on this letter are clearly cut and 
pasted onto the letter. The petitioner has not resolved this discrepancy with independent objective 
evidence. Thus, this letter has no evidentiary value. In addition, 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. at 591. Thus, 
the credibility of the remaining letters, which either do not appear on letterhead or are accompanied by 
uncertified translations, also have diminished credibility. 
submitted: (1) a March 31, 2007 letter from 
(2) an April 28, 2007 letter from 
March 26, 2007 letter from 
.~~ (4) a January 
Many of the s martial arts practice style. For example. 
according to the petitioner "has created hcr 
own style harmonize firmness and softness, which is like 
instilling new life to He further stated in his March 26, 2007 letter that 
"[p Jracticing her style makes the practitioners reconnect the mind to the body, the conscience to the 
subconscious. and themselves to nature." He stated that "[t]hrough [the petitioner's] meticulous 
Page 16 
instruction, she has instilled in her students no only the drive to attain perfection in their craft, but to 
sharc this crati with others." 
Although the petitioner may have created her own martial arts practicing style, the evidence does not 
show that this constitutes a contribution of major significant in the sport of martial arts. The petitioner 
has provided no evidence that anyone, other than herself, practices her style of martial arts. Indeed, 
none of her references have stated that they practice her style of martial arts. In short, the AAO does 
not have sutlicient evidence to assess the impact of the petitioner's style of practice in the sports of 
martial arts beyond her unknown number of students. As such, the AAO cannot find that her style of 
martial arts practice constitutes a contribution of major significance in the sport of martial arts. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of 
qualifying contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Even if the AAO were to conclude that the 
petitioner's own style of martial arts practice constituted a single example of contribution of major 
significance, the AAO would not have sufficient evidence of original contributions of major 
significance in the plural. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because she has not 
submitted credible evidence showing that she has made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, 
or business-related contributions of major significance in the sport of marital arts. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
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 and to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of Chinese martial arts. 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)( I )(A) of the Act and 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. 
20(ll), a/rd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 
(3d Cir. 2(04) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Page 17 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting demonstrably false evidence, the petitioner has sought to 
procure a benefit provided under the Act through the willful misrepresentation of a material fact. This 
finding of material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility 
IS an Issue. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirel y 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 and the AAO enters a separate finding of willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted false documents in an 
effort to mislead users on elements material to her eligibility for a benefit 
sought under the immigration laws of the United States.