dismissed EB-1A Case: Diamond Selection / Jewelry Design

adentilying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccuritj 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
(L 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 1 0 2006 
---- 
EAC 05 065 5 1296 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
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. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based irnrnigrant 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 as a diamond selector. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence, which do not overcome the deficiencies of 
the petition. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed for the following reasons. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or 
international acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). 
 An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the 
necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "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). 
Page 3 
We address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. Counsel does not claim that the petitioner is eligible 
under any criteria not discussed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the jield of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted no evidence of his eligibility under this criterion, but on appeal, the 
petitioner submits two relevant articles. The first article is a printout from the website of Relax, Echo 
dated October 23, 1998. The submitted English translation states, "The work of [the petitioner], 22- 
year old creator of artistic jewelry [sic] called the highest recognition at the 'Contemporary Polish 
Goldsmith Art' exhibition at 'Piwnice' Galery [sic] of Kielecki Artistic Exhibitions Office." The 
record contains no primary evidence of the petitioner's recognition at this exhibit and the article itself 
does not establish that this acknowledgment was a nationally recognized prize or award for excellence 
in the petitioner's field in Poland. Moreover, this recognition was made in 1998, six years before this 
petition was filed, and does not demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The second article is undated and was submitted as a printout from the website of Newspaper.pl. The 
submitted English translation states, "At the Gold Silver Time Fair in the Expo Center in Warsaw the 
results of Goldsmith contest were announced. The contest was organized by International Fair Center 
and Artistic Workshop. The 22-year [petitioner] was rewarded the highest prize, the graduate of the 
Kielce School." The record contains no primary evidence of the petitioner's prize. The article states 
that the fair "has become the most prestigious event in the country" and that the main purpose of the 
contest is "to promote Polish art craft as well as craftsmen and beginning students rich with goldsmith 
output." Even if this article established the national recognition of the petitioner's prize, the article 
indicates that the petitioner received the prize in 1997 (when he was 22 years-old), seven years before 
this petition was filed. Hence, the prize does not demonstrate sustained national acclaim. Accordingly, 
the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(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. 
On appeal, counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion through his Diploma as a Master of 
Goldsmithery and Gemstones Working issued by the Craft Guild Chamber in Kielce, Poland on June 
15, 1997. Counsel claims that this diploma "entitles [the petitioner] to use the title master of 
Goldsmithery and Gemstone Working, which is a very specialized diploma and prerequisite for 
diamond selector [sic]" (italicization as in original). Counsel further notes that acceptance into the 
Craft Guild, "according to [the petitioner], is by recommendation, and the association is the only [sic] 
of its type in Poland, without a competing association exclusively for diamond selector craftsmanship." 
Although the diploma states that the petitioner is entitled to the appellation of "Master of Goldsmithery 
and Gemstones Working" due to his passage of a master examination in this craft, the diploma does not 
further explain the significance of this title or state the Craft Guild eligibility requirements. The record 
contains no other evidence that the petitioner's diploma was awarded on the basis of outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in his field, rather than a 
professional license or credential granted by a regional authority. In addition, the diploma was awarded 
over seven years before this petition was filed and the record contains no evidence that the petitioner 
has maintained his Craft Guild membership in Poland after his arrival in the United States in 1999 and 
during the five years preceding the filing of this petition. Hence, the diploma alone does not 
demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien S work in the Jield for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted a printout of an article from the website of Echo of the Day, which is 
dated October 4, 1997, contains a photograph of the petitioner and discusses the exhibition entitled 
"Contemporary Polish Art of Goldsmithery" at a gallery of the Kielce Art Exhibition Bureau. The 
article states: 
Among breathtaking bracelets, neckleces [sic], rings and earings [sic] there were works of [the 
petitioner]. This 22 years old graduate of Kielce School specializes in gemstone works. His 
passion is to work with ruby and diamond. The jewels he made do not comply with any norm 
or trend. [The petitioner] makes very personal, emotional and technically perfect jewellery 
[sic]. 
Although this article is about the petitioner's work, it was published over seven years before the 
petition was filed and does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Moreover, the record is devoid 
of any evidence that Echo of the Day is a professional, major trade publication or other form of major 
media in Poland. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the two additional articles discussed above under the first criterion. 
The first article, dated October 23, 1998, briefly notes the petitioner's receipt of the "highest 
recognition" at the "Contemporary Polish Goldsmith Art" exhibition at a gallery in Kielce. Although 
the submitted English translation identifies the source of this article as Relax, Echo, the original 
printout in Polish contains the same words and logo as the article submitted with the petition from Echo 
of the Day. The second article submitted on appeal was published in Newspaper.pl on an unspecified 
date in 1997. This article discusses the petitioner's work and his receipt of the "highest prize" in the 
Goldsmith Contest at the Gold Silver Time Fair in the Expo Center of Warsaw. While both of the 
articles submitted on appeal are about the petitioner, they were published six and seven years before 
this petition was filed and do not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
In addition, the record is devoid of any evidence that Relax, Echo (or Echo of the Day) and 
Newspaper.pl are professional, major trade publications or other forms of major media in Poland. On 
appeal, counsel contends that the director erroneously evaluated the evidence "with a western standard 
Page 5 
when "the beneficiary is from less than the perfect country [sic] where such publication or trade is not 
available." 
 We find no such error in the director's decision. 
 Moreover, the record contains no 
documentation regarding the lack of professional or major trade publications in the petitioner's field in 
Poland, as asserted by counsel. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). On appeal, 
counsel further claims that the petitioner provided "evidence of his work being published in a major 
media, based on the circulation in the town or region that he reside [sic] in Poland. It might not be as 
widely read or popular as the 'New York Times' or its contemporaries. But the gazeta in which his 
work or craft was publish [sic] is available on the Internet and that make [sic] its content and circulation 
readily available to host of readers [sic]." Again, the record does not corroborate counsel's claims. The 
petitioner submitted no evidence that Relax, Echo (or Echo of the Dq) and Newspaper.pl are forms of 
major media in Poland. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientzflc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
Counsel does not claim that the petitioner meets this criterion, but the record contains relevant evidence 
which merits brief discussion. In response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner 
submitted six recommendation letters from his former employers and clients. While such letters 
provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by 
themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the 
alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom 
he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we 
m 
as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
The President o 
 in Krakow, Poland (whose name is not identified in the submitted 
translation of this letter), states that the petitioner worked for 
 as a contractor from 1996 
to 1998 fulfilling orders for fine jewelry and that "[hlis works were known among our clients for its 
precision. As a jeweler he was a guarantee [sic] of perfection and high quality." 
f Krakow, Poland, states that the petitioner worked for her from 1995 to 1996 as a 
s specialist and completed some of her "most advanced orders for gem 
raises the petitioner as "a very reliable and excellent jeweler." 
high quality and with which she was "very satisfied." The manager of the Ph Zlotnik jeweler's store in 
Zdunska Wola, Poland (whose name is not identified in the submitted translation of the letter) states 
that the 
 made "an amber in the platinum setting of very high class" for the store. 
and of Italy confirm that they commissioned the petitioner to make Ms. 
Page 6 
engagement ring in 1997. 
 They state that the ring was made of platinum and 
diamonds, was completed on time, was excellently done and that they were very happy with it. 
Similarly, and of Canada state that they used the petitioner's services 
twice and were "really satisfied with the products he created for us." 
Five of these letters are dated between 1995 and 1998 and one is dated in 2005. While these letters 
indicate that the petitioner was considered an excellent jeweler by two former employers and four 
clients, the letters do not discuss the petitioner's work in any depth or explain how he made original 
contributions of major significance to his field in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Other evidence in the record also fails to establish the significance of the 
petitioner's work. With his Form 1-140, the petitioner submitted ten black and white printouts of 
images of jewels and jewelry identified only as "Photos." While notable, the submitted articles about 
the petitioner's work do not demonstrate sustained national acclaim (as discussed above under the first 
and third criteria). Although these articles report two prizes or awards won by the petitioner, the record 
is devoid of any primary evidence of those honors. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The submitted articles show that the petitioner's work was exhibited on two occasions in Poland 
between 1997 and 1998, six and seven years before this petition was filed. Although the articles 
indicate that the petitioner received limited national recognition in Poland for his work in these 
exhibitions, the record does not indicate that the petitioner achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim through the public display of his work. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion because he was commissioned to 
create an amber ring for a leading jeweler in Zdunska Wola, Poland. Counsel states: 
Being asked to commission an art [sic] is equivalent to playing a critical [sic] in whatever 
capacity the invitation was tended [sic]. The criticality [sic] of [the] petitioner's participation is 
demonstrated by his creation, because whatever he was asked to design inevitably would 
increase or enhance the reputation of the establishment that asked for that commissioning [sic]. 
The record does not support these claims. The letter from the manager of the Ph Zlotnik jewler's store 
in Zdunska Wola, Poland states that the petitioner made "an amber in the platinum setting of very high 
class" for the store and that "the ordered job was done on time and without reservation." The letter 
shows that the petitioner successfully completed one order for this store, but does not indicate that he 
performed a critical or leading role for Ph Zlotnik. The record is also devoid of any evidence that this 
store has a distinguished reputation in Poland or abroad. Again, without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Rarnirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. Accordingly, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel requests that we consider the recommendation letters as comparable evidence of the 
petitioner's eligibility. Comparable evidence will only be considered when the evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Counsel has not explained 
or documented how the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the petitioner's 
occupation as a diamond setter, goldsmith or fine jeweler. To the contrary, the record indicates that at 
least five of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) apply to the petitioner's profession. Moreover, we 
have considered the recommendation letters in ow above discussions of the fifth and eighth criteria. 
On appeal, counsel further claims that the director applied an erroneous standard by failing to evaluate 
the petitioner's alleged extraordinary ability in both the arts and the sciences. We find no such error in 
the director's decision. The petitioner submitted no evidence regarding the scientific aspects of his 
profession and counsel does not coherently demonstrate how an analysis of the petitioner's 
accomplishments as both scientific and artistic achievements would establish his eligibility. The 
record does not demonstrate that the petitioner is an alien with extraordinary ability in either the arts 
or the sciences pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h). 
In support of his claim that the director applied an erroneous standard, counsel cites the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). That regulation pertains to the nonimmigrant 0-1 classification and is 
irrelevant to this case. Although the words "extraordinary ability" are used in the Act for both the 
nonimmigrant 0-1 classification and the first preference employment-based immigrant classification, 
the applicable regulations define the terms differently for each classification. The 0-1 regulation 
explicitly states that "[elxtraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F.R. 
fj 214.2(0)(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a lower standard than that required for the immigrant classification, 
which defines extraordinary ability as "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). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the record also fails to establish that the petitioner seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in his area of expertise, as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the 
Act. The corresponding regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(5) states: 
Neither an offer for employment in the United States nor a labor certification is required for 
this classification; however, the petition must be accompanied by 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 petitioner submitted no such evidence. The record shows that the petitioner arrived in the United 
States on October 29, 1999 in B2 nonirnmigrant status, but the petitioner submitted no evidence that he 
secured contracts, orders or other agreements from prospective employers or clients in the United States 
in the five years between his arrival in this country and the filing of this petition. The petitioner also 
failed to provide any detailed statement of his plans to continue working in his field in the United 
States. Consequently, the petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility for classification pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
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), affd. 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). 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(A), only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation 
of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of 
his or her field. The record in this case does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim as diamond setter, goldsmith or fine jeweler, placing him at the very 
top of his field. The record also fails to demonstrate that the petitioner seeks to enter the United States 
to continue work in his area of alleged extraordinary ability. He is thus ineligible for immigrant 
classification pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition 
may not be approved. 
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. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.