dismissed EB-1A Case: Embroidery Art

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly inwananted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 06 009 5 1875 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 
2 Robert 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 Off~ce (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 9 204.5(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. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 30, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an embroidery artist. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. 
The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since February 15, 1997. Given 
the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 
eight 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. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. "Certificate of Honor" issued by the Tonight newspaper of Tianjin on January 28,2000 
2, Certificate of appreciation issued by the "Youth Development Fund Association of Tianjin" in 
January 2000 
3. "Honor Certificate" issued by the "Tianjin Charitable Association" on January 28,2000 
4. Certificate conferring the petitioner with the title "Tianjin Folk Fine Art Master" dated November 
1998 
5. "Honor Certificate" issued by the "Tianj in TV Station" in January 2000 
6. Certificate issued by the Bureau of Tourism of Shandong Province stating that the petitioner's 
artwork "won the outstanding award in the Second Session of Design Competition of Tour products 
in Shandong Province" (January 30, 1995) 
7. "Honor Certificate" issued by the Nanjin Museum stating that the petitioner won the "Committee 
Special Award" at the "Jiansu Fine Arts Exhibit" (May 1994) 
8. Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork won a first place award at the "Second Session of 
Industrial Art Festival of Anhui Province" (September 1993) 
9. Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork won a second place award at the "Chinese National 
Day - Artwork Exhibition of Chaohu Province" (July 1994) 
10. Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork won a Golden Award at the "Fifty Fifth Anniversary 
of Chinese National Day -Artworks Exhibition Shanxi Province" (September 1990) 
11. Certificate issued by the "State Department of China" stating that the petitioner was awarded a 
"Special Government Allowance" (October 1992) 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to CIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation that 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 translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates were not certified as required by 
the regulation. 
In regard to items 1 through 5, we note that four of these certificates were allegedly issued to the petitioner in 
China in January 2000 and one was allegedly issued in November 1998. The petitioner, however, has been 
present in the United States since February 15, 1997. The petitioner has not resolved this discrepancy. It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
Page 4 
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. 
In regard to items 1 through 10, we find that these awards reflect provincial recognition rather than national or 
international recognition. 
In regard to items 1 through 1 1, there is no evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding these awards 
or evidence showing that they command a substantial level of recognition. Further, the record includes no 
evidence that would demonstrate the number of recipients, the criteria for granting the awards, the level of 
expertise of those considered, and the number of individuals eligible to compete. We note here that section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate evidence showing that the awards presented 
under this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. In this case, there is no supporting 
documentation from the awarding entities or print media to establish that the petitioner's awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualifi.. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be her membership certificate (issued in August 1996) for the 
Chinese Artists' Association (CAA). There is no evidence showing the duration of petitioner's membership 
or whether she remained active in this association in recent years. In response to the director's December 19, 
2005 notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted documents entitled "The Chinese Artist Association 
Introduction" and "Chinese Artist Association Regulation." We cannot accept these documents as evidence, 
however, because the English language translations accompanying them were not certified as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). Further, the source of these documents has not been properly identified. 
There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in the CAA required outstanding achievement or 
that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of her admission to 
membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the$eld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted images of what are alleged to be her embroidery creations. 
 Without further 
evidence, it has not established that the petitioner's works are among those shown. The images of the 
petitioner's creations were not accompanied by contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or art 
brochure) indicating the specific exhibition or showcase in which they appeared. In this case, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's works have been displayed at significant national or international 
venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's works have been featured along side those of artists 
who have national or international reputations. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated her regular 
participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the display of her artwork alone. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In conclusion, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she meets 
at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, although the petitioner has resided in the 
United States since 1997, there is no evidence showing that she has sustained national acclaim in this country. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on March 17, 2006. 
 The appellate submission was accompanied by 
supporting evidence (which has been addressed in this decision). On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to 
the AAO, the petitioner indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. 
As of this date, more than seven months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record 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 
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). 
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 
Page 6 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.