dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 9 
EAC 05 181 52722 
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. 
 1 153(b)(I)(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. 
u 
$obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed 
with a finding of fraud. 
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 November 16, 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 she misrepresented the artistic 
achievements of other individuals as her own. 
The AAO's November 16,2006 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." 
In support of your petition, you submitted a 19 page document entitled "BIOGRAPHY: [the 
petitioner]" which allegedly describes your performing arts achievements. After further investigation, 
it has been determined that you misrepresented the artistic achievements of other individuals as your 
own in this biography. Your alleged biography consists of plagiarized text relating to dancers and 
choreographers such as Yong Yao, Wu Haiyan, Shen Wei, and Wang Qimin. The text you 
plagiarized originated from the following sources: 
1. "YAO Yong" biography accessed at http://www.melodyofchina.com on November 8,2006 
2. Article entitled "China, U.S. Dancers Strike Gold in Int'l Ballet Competition" accessed at 
http://english.people.corn.cn on November 8, 2006 
3. Article entitled "Movement Meets Canvas, Leaving a Lasting Impression" accessed at 
http://www.shenweidancearts.org on November 8,2006 
4. Article entitled "Chinese Ballet Dancer Wins Top Woman Award in Moscow" accessed at 
http://englisl~.people.com.cn on November 8, 2006 
5. Article entitled "The Art of Chinese Dance" accessed at http://www.houstoncul.org on 
November 8,2006 
By plagiarizing material relating to other artists and misrepresenting their accomplishments as your 
own in the biography you submitted to CIS, you have attempted to obtain a visa by fraud and 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 
Page 3 
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). 
Because you submitted a falsified biography, we cannot accord any of your other claims any weight. 
If you choose to contest the AAO's findings, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancies described above. 
The petitioner was afforded fifteen days (plus 3 days for mailing) in which to submit evidence to overcome the 
derogatory information cited above. The petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's notice. 
Section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fiaud 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. 
By filing the instant petition and misrepresenting the history and accomplishments of Yong Yao, Wu Haiyan, 
Shen Wei, and Wang Qimin as her own, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act 
through fiaud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Because the petitioner has failed to provide 
independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our finding that she misrepresented 
the accomplishments of other dancers and choreographers as her own, 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, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 59 1-92. 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 
rage 4 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). 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. tj 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. 
tj 204.5(h)(3): 
Initial evidence: A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise. Such evidence shall include evidence of a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, international recognized award), or at least three of the following: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) 
 Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This petition, filed on June 8, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
dancer, choreographer, and dance instructor. As required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner must demonstrate that her national or international acclaim 
has been sustained. The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since May 
1998. Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing 
date (more than seven years), 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 in this country. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted the aforementioned 19-page falsified biography. The 
petitioner also submitted two photographic images of a female dancer, but it has not been established that the 
individual pictured is the petitioner. The director found that the preceding documentation was not sufficient 
to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim, or that her achievements have been 
recognized in her field of expertise. On July 18,2005, the director issued a notice of intent to deny informing 
the petitioner of the deficiencies in the record and requesting that she submit evidence pertaining to the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner failed to respond to the director's notice of intent to deny. Therefore, on January 30, 2006, the 
director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "Since I need time to collect my professional evidence for my application, 
please reactivate my case. I will submit the evidence as soon as I obtain it. Thanks very much." 
The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments specifically challenging the director's findings or 
evidence pertaining to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner indicated that a brief 
andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 180 days. The appeal was filed on February 17, 2006. 
As of this date, more than one year later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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($ 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. 
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 
Page 6 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afyd. 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 with a finding of fraud. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted a document containing false 
statements in an effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on elements material to her 
eligibility for a benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States.