dismissed EB-1A Case: Foot-Massaged Shoe Design

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
Wn* *-P*, b- "" ,p I * '$ 
" ' j +*NZ *re ***+ j 
hh **-* $ ---x<".* 
9% 9% ... 2% .&&*** 
$g 
**&&*& "ifl i @ ^'" 
<&,' ,*3 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ji - ii 
d , 
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. 3 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. 
ybert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 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 immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S .C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or intemational 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 intemational 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. 
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. 
5 204.5(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 he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 15, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Foot-Massaged Shoe Designer." In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted photographs and 
diagrams of what are alleged to be his creations. This evidence, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate 
the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim, or that his achievements have been recognized in 
his field of expertise. On November 19, 2004, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's 
evidence did not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Honor (dated December 1997) with an accompanying English language 
translation indicating that he "was granted the First-Class Award of National Grand Design Contest." The 
record, however, contains no evidence of publicity surrounding this contest or evidence showing that the 
petitioner's award enjoys a significant level of recognition. Simply receiving an award certificate with the 
word "national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive criterion. The petitioner must provide 
evidence showing that his award enjoys significant national or international stature. In this case, the record 
contains no documentation from the awarding entity or print media to establish that the petitioner's Certificate 
of Honor is a nationally recognized award for excellence. Furthermore, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), 
any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 translation accompanying the petitioner's Certificate of Honor was not certified as required by 
the regulation. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in theBeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a blurred photocopy of the cover of a book of which he claims he is the author. The 
petitioner failed to submit an English language translation of the book cover as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). There is no evidence showing that this book was actually authored by the petitioner or 
evidence of its substantial national readership. Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's 
book is viewed throughout his field as significantly influential. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, the petitioner re-submits the photographs and diagrams of what are alleged to be his creations, 
asserting that they reflect his commercial success. The plain wording of this criterion, however, indicates that it 
is intended for ''performing" artists such as musicians and actors rather than the petitioner's occupation. 
Nevertheless, the regulation calls for commercial success in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply asserting 
that one's designs "are bestsellers on market [sic] and very profitable" cannot satisfy criterion. The record 
contains no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing significant national distribution of the 
petitioner's creations or their widespread commercial success. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility 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 contains 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), afd. 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.