dismissed EB-1A Case: Equestrian Performer

~ ~ .- ... "t.~(?-"~"'":\r; a?r,<}r ('1'F1~~~'('~~) f,J 
h·~,",.j .. -: ." '~.:~' ,·.-':~t ~ .-4. ,",>'.,'.- ,_,..",J,~\;~, .• 
c,f. 
PlffiLICCOPY 
DATE: APR 06 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § lI53(b)(l)(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 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 c.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(l )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank YOCfJo:- 25~ 
y;,--
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on November 23, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed. 
I. Summary Dismissal 
The petItIoner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as an equestrian performer. Congress set a very high benchmark 
for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate 
"sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of his or her 
achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
implementing regulation at 8 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, specifically a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that at the time of the original filing of the petition, 
the petitioner claimed eligibility for only two of the criteria pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the petitioner claimed eligibility for the original contributions 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the leading or critical role 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On September 24, 2009, the 
director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8) stating that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that she made original contributions of major significance and that she performed in 
a leading or critical role, as well as stating that the reference letters submitted by the petitioner 
failed to establish that she has displayed her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Moreover, the director stated: 
[W]hile reviewing the current petition USCIS also noted that the letter submitted 
by states that the petitioner has been employed by them 
since However, the petitioner has previously submitted 
documentary evidence to USCIS which stated that she had been employed by 
December 1,2001 through March 10,2006. 
The petitioner's former employer has indicated that some of the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner for two separate petitions was fraudulent. 
The director did not provide any further elaboration pertaining to his statement that the 
petitioner's former employer submitted some evidence that was fraudulent for two other 
petitions. In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, counsel did not contest the 
findings of the director or offer additional documentation regarding the petitioner's eligibility as 
an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In fact, counsel 
Page 3 
made no mention of the petitioner's eligibility for any of the criteria pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204 Instead, counsel addressed the petitioner's discrepancy in her dates of 
employment with Specifically, counsel 
claimed: 
Your records will confirm that 
primary employer for [the IJvl.1l1\.HlvJ 
served as an agent and 
and moved 
many circus performers, many of whom 
w WI in the Orlando, Florida area and beyond. A copy 
of~ by_ confirming the employment of [the petitioner] 
at ____ in 2002 is attached as EXHIBIT A. Per the most recent USCIS 
agency memorandum, the long standing tradition of agents acting as petitioner's 
[sic] for P-l and other performers has once again been ratified. Any inference 
that something must have been wrong for the P-l petition to have been filed by an 
agent for a former Ringling P-l performer to move to has no 
merit in this regard. 
On November 23, 2009, the director denied the petition and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish eligibility under any of the criteria. In addition, the director stated: 
The petitioner also included a letter s· 
2002. However, on February 2, 2007, 
pleaded guilty to knowingly 
in pursuit of immigration benefits for clients of 
March 29, 2007,_provided USCIS with a signed declaration 111UlvUlL11 
that several letters had been fraudulently obtained by him and provided to USCIS 
with an 1-140 petition filed by for [the petitioner], the 1-
140 was denied. 
Subsequently a second 1-140 petition was filed for petitioner] by_ 
represented by attorney The 1-140 petition filed 
by includes copies of the same fraudulent documents 
included with the 1-140 ~~1·,~"'~ filed b 
The instant 1-140 petition which was filed on December 29, 2006 was 
b a recommendation letter from signed for by 
Dated February 20,2003; which was identified by_ 
as one of the fraudulent documents. Also, the ·oner submitted a 
recommendation letter signed for by dated September 24, 
2006. 
In his declaration provided signed statements confirming that a 
from the signed for by 
December 18, 2002; was among the fraudulent 
Page 4 
documents that had been previou ented to USCIS by the petitioner or by 
_ on her behalf. Also, declaration states the contracts 
submitted with the 1-129 petitions for the petitioner in this case, were fraudulent 
and that the petitioner was never employed in accordance with either of the 1-129 
petitions filed on her behalf thus the recommendation letter from 
counsel submitted has no validity nor does it verify the petitioner's employment 
with 
On appeal, counsel states that "the applicant appeals the finding of fraud as alleged in the USCIS 
Decision." Counsel did not contest the findings of the director or offer additional documentation 
regarding the petitioner's eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Specifically, counsel did not claim that the petitioner submitted 
qualifying evidence of at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, counsel did not claim that the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) provides that "[a]n officer to whom an appeal is taken 
shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal." In this case, although counsel 
contests the director's purported finding of fraud, which will be addressed below, counsel has not 
identified as a proper basis for the appeal, an erroneous conclusion of law, or a statement of fact 
in the director's decision regarding the petitioner's eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As such, the regulations mandate the summary 
dismissal of the appeal. 
II. Consolidation of Appeals 
Counsel requests on appeal: 
Please note that a parallel case involving the EB-3 1-140 with petitioner_ 
referenced several times in this brief. The USCIS Decision itself 
the same EB-3 1-140. The revocation of that EB-3 1-140 
and the subsequent Decision denying the Motion to 
Reopen/Reconsider is also on appeal, and a brief will be filed within the next 
month. These two cases involve essentially the same parties, the same forged 
letters, and the same factual questions and the same Immigration Officer. . .. In 
order to have one clear and fair decision on all facts and issues and to avoid 
conflicting findings, and conserve administrative resources, we respectfully 
request that the cases be consolidated and decided together. 
Page 5 
Counsel's request to consolidate the appeals is denied. A review of the record of proceeding 
reflects that the petitioner is also the beneficiary of a skilled worker 'tion pursuant to section 
203(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act filed on her behalf by The director revoked 
the approval of this petition on November 30, 2009. The director dismissed the petitioner's 
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider on January 13, 2010. Counsel submitted an appeal on 
January 22, 2010, which is currently pending with the AAO. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(iii) states in pertinent part: 
(B) Meaning of affected party. For purposes of this section and §§ 103.4 and 
103.5 of this part, affected party (in addition to the Service) means the person or 
entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneficiary of a 
visa petItIOn. An affected party may be represented by an attorney or 
representative in accordance with part 292 of this chapter. 
In order to properly file an appeal, the affected party is "the person or entity with legal standing 
in a proceeding." See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B). In this instance, the alien is the beneficiary 
of the skilled worker petition and has no legal standing to consolidate that appeal into her self­
petitioning appeal of an alien of extraordinary ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B). 
Moreover, pursuant to section 286(m) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1356, USCIS is required to recover 
the full cost of adjudication. In addition to the statutory requirement, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 requires that USCIS recover all direct and indirect costs of 
providing a good, resource, or service. l As such, Medieval Knights, LLC will receive a separate 
decision regarding its appeal of the revocation of the approval of the skilled worker petition. For 
these reasons, counsel's request to consolidate the appeals is denied. 
III. Fraud 
Counsel claims on appeal: 
The uscrs has blatantly disregarded its own regulations by failing to timely 
disclose potentially derogatory information regarding forged recommendation 
letters. Applicant was thus deprived of the opportunity to rebut such evidence 
before the decision to 'deny was rendered. 
Although counsel references issues throughout his brief that the director raised in the revocation 
of the approval of the petition filed by as well as the revocations of the 
approvals of the 0-1 and P-l nonimmigrant visa petitions that were filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary by the scope of the AAO's 
decision will be limited to this petition for an ility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. As discussed previously, the director did not deny the petition because 
some of the documentary evidence was fraudulent and did not enter a formal finding of fraud. 
Rather the director determined that the documentary evidence failed to demonstrate that the 
I See http://ww\v.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a025/a02S.html. Accessed on March 6, 2012, and incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
. , 
Page 6 
petitioner met at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3), and that the 
petitioner demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim. 
In the director's notice and decision, he indicated that previous immigrant and nonimmigrant 
petitions were filed on behalf of the petitioner that were submitted with fraudulent 
documentation supplied by who was convicted under 8 U.S.C. 
§§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) for inducing an to enter and reside in the United States and 18 U.S.c. 
§ lS46(a) for false statement to a material fact in application, affidavit, or other document 
required by immigration laws. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i) provides that "liJf the 
decision will be adverse to the applicant or petitioner and is based on derogatory information 
considered by the Service and of which the applicant or petitioner is unaware, he/she shall be 
advised of this fact and offered an opportunity to rebut the information and present information 
in hislher own behalf before the decision is rendered, except as provided in paragraphs 
(b)(16)(ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section." In this case, although the director chose to include 
information regarding __ and other nonimmigrant and immigrant petitions, this 
information was not th~e director's decision that the petitioner failed to establish 
eligibility for an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The 
issues raised by counsel on appeal regarding the opportunity to respond to all of the derogatory 
information and the willful and material misrepresentation of the petitioner are not relevant to the 
appeal of this petition; instead those issues will be addressed in the appeal of the revocation of 
the approval of the skilled worker petition filed 
IV. Conclusion 
As stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed 
if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact for the appeal. As the petitioner offers no substantive basis for the filing of the appeal, 
the regulations mandate the summary dismissal of the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.