dismissed EB-1A Case: Glass Art

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clediiy u"vjsmantd 
invasion of persod @VSY 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
  ate: AUG 1 6 2006 
EAC 05 126 52423 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 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. 
/ !I Administrative Appeals Office 
'J 
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. 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. 
On June 1, 2006, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. Ej 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he misrepresented the artistic 
accomplishments of other individuals as his own. 
The AAO's June 1, 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." 
8 C.F.R. Ej 204.5(h)(3)(iii) calls for the submission of 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 sou ht. You submitted what is alleged to be an article written by- 
entitled "Interview wit (r ' that appeared in a 2001 issue of American Art Glass 
Quarterly. 
 After further investigation, it has been determined that this article was a fraudulent 
submission. 
 The AAO was able to obtain the original article at http: 
original article, entitled "Interview with ' rather than "Interview with 
and which did not mention your name, appeared in American Art Glass Quarterly, Volume 3, No. 1, 
1985. In this instance, you falsely substituted your name into an article about Dale Chihuly. 
8 C.F.R. Ej 204.5(h)(3)(vi) calls for evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. In support of your petition, you 
submitted what are alleged to be articles written by you appearing in People Daily News (September 
29, 1990), Contemporary Glass Artists and Their Work (1995), and an unnamed publication from 
2004. After further investigation, it has been determined that: 
1. The September 29, 1990 article in People Daily News . . . was originally written by 
appeared in a September 29, 1971 issue of The New York Times. The AAO was able to obtain 
the original article at http://www.chihul~.com. 
2. The 1995 article in Contemporary Glass Artists and Their Work of which you claim 
authorship was originally written by -he AAO was able to obtain the original 
article from his website at http://www.chihuly.com. 
Page 3 
3. The article entitled 
 2004" of which you claim authorship included material 
originally written by Sunny Wang and can be accessed at http://koru-hk.com. The original 
version of this article was entitled "Sunny Wang Glass 2004." 
In the preceding instances, you altered original material written by Rita Reif, Dale Chihuly, and Sunny 
Wang and then misrepresented their material as your own work. You falsely substituted your name into 
their articles and plagiarized their work. 
You submitted what is alleged to be the cover of a book that you authored entitled The Spectacle of 
Beauty of the Glass Work. You also submitted what is alleged to be a "description" of this book and 
its author. After further investigation, it has been determined that this description relates to Dale 
Chihuly rather than yourself. The AAO was able to obtain the original material at 
http://www.chihuly.com and http://shop.store.yahoo.com/portlandpress.chihovvenpar.html. In this 
instance, you misrepresented the achievements of Dale Chihuly as your own. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vii) calls for evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases 
 tional material dated October 7,2004 for what is alleged 
to an exhibition entitled 
 2004, Houston, TX." After further investigation, it has 
been determined that this promotional material was for an exhibition of Sunny Wang's work in Hong 
Kong rather than your work in Houston. The AAO was able to obtain the original material at 
http://koru-hk.com. You also submitted what are alleged to be images and descriptions of your 
exhibited artwork. After further investigation, it has been determined that the artwork shown is Dale 
Chihuly's rather than your own. The AAO was able to obtain the original material at 
http://www.okcmoa.com. In the preceding instances, you misrepresented the artistic creations of Dale 
Chihuly and the exhibition of Sunny Wang's work as your own. 
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 
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). 
The above derogatory information indicates that you have misrepresented the accomplishments of 
others as your own. For this reason, we cannot accord any of your other claims any weight. 
The evidence of record, outlined above, indicates a consistent and pervasive pattern of 
misrepresentation of material claims. Our modest inquiry reveals that the record contains a 
significant quantity of fraudulent documents. If you choose to contest the AAO's findings, you must 
offer independent and objective evidence from credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting 
all of the discrepancies described above. 
The petitioner was afforded thirty days 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: 
Page 4 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud 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 submitting the aforementioned falsified materials, the petitioner has sought 
to procure a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willful misrepresentation of material facts. 
Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and 
persuasively, our findings that he misrepresented his past accomplishments, 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 at 582, 591-92. 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 
(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. 
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). 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 March 28, 2005, seeks to classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a sculptor, decorating expert, and designer. 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 2000. Given the 
length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 
four years), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that 
time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation as an artist in this country. 
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 recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Certificate stating that the petitioner's "artwork of color . . . won second place in the first annual art 
festival in Jinlin Province" (October 1989) 
2. Certificate from the "Public Affair Department of Jilin Province" stating that the petitioner was 
chosen as "one of the Talented Young Artists" (December 1997) 
3. Certificate of encouragement issued by the "Jilin Government" stating that the petitioner's work 
"'Chinese Dragon' . . . made a great impact" at the 1 lth Annual Culture Art Exhibition (December 
1997) 
4. Certificate from the "News Publishing Department of the People's Republic of China" (January 
2000) stating: "After careful review of your work Joy and the photos you submitted for the new 
millennium photography competition, I am very pleased to announce that your work has won the 
best display award." 
5. Certificate from the "Contemporary Art Association of the People's Republic of China" stating that 
the petitioner's glasswork "Kindness" won the "outstanding award" at an unidentified exhibition in 
June 2000 
6. Certificate stating that the petitioner's "glasswork 'Scenery' . . . won the first place in the Millennium 
Luxury Architect Design Competition" (January 2000) 
7. Certificate stating that the petitioner's artwork won an "outstanding award at the 4th Art Festival in 
Jinlin Province" (October 1992) 
8. Certificate stating that the petitioner "won the Outstanding Achievement Award" presented by the 
"Jilin Government" (December 1997) 
9. "Honor Certificate" from the "Jilin Government" stating that the petitioner was appointed as "one of 
the top ten young artists in the nation" (August 1998) 
10. "Honor Certificate" stating that the petitioner's "glass sculpture skill . . .won the first place in the 4' 
national exhibit competition" (August 2000) 
Page 6 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 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 translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates 
were not certified as required by the regulation. 
In regard to items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9, we find that these awards reflect provincial recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. 
In regard to items 2 and 9, we find that such "young artist" awards offer no meaningful comparison between 
the petitioner and the most experienced and practiced sculptors. There is no indication that the petitioner 
faced competition from throughout his entire field, rather than his approximate age group within that field. 
These awards are not an indication that the petitioner has reached the "very top of the field of endeavor." See 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Chinese 
modern glass art unfolds 2000 (Beijing) the national outstanding works exhibition the match announcement." 
This document provides information related to a glass competition in Beijing sponsored by the "Chinese 
construction glass and industry glass association." The first line under the title states: "time: In June 2000 8th 
- 14'~." This date and the date appearing in the title of the document contradict a date appearing in a sentence 
within the first paragraph of the document which states: "The Chinese construction glass and industry glass 
association in April, 2004, will conduct 'the Chinese modern art nation outstanding works in Beijing the 
match."' Both the original document and its accompanying non-certified English language translation contain 
this date discrepancy. As stated previously, 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. 
See Matter ofHo at 582, 591-92. In this instance, there is no competent objective evidence showing that this 
competition took place in 2000 or that the petitioner was an actual participant. 
In regard to items 1 through 10, there is no evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding the 
petitioner's awards or evidence showing that they command a substantial level of recognition. 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 certificates 
presented under this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. Simply alleging that an award 
is nationally recognized cannot suffice to satisfy this criterion. In this case, there is no supporting 
documentation from the awarding entities or the print media to establish that the petitioner's awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized awards. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, the record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has received 
any awards subsequent to 2000. The absence of awards in recent years indicates that the petitioner's acclaim 
has not been sustained. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 7 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in thejeld for which classijkation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
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 qualifl. 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 certificates reflecting his appointment as a board member of the Chinese Art 
Association (August 2000) and the Art Association of Jilin Province (September 1997). There is no evidence 
showing the duration of petitioner's appointments or whether he remains an active member of these 
organizations. Further, the record does not include the membership bylaws or the official admission 
requirements for the Art Association of Jilin Province. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Chinese artist 
association" which cites that organization's "draft" regulations. We cannot accept this evidence, however, 
because the English language translation accompanying the document was not certified as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to show that admission to membership in the preceding 
associations required outstanding achievement or that he was evaluated by national or international experts in 
consideration of his admission to membership. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in 
the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as 
major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language 
that most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally 
Page 8 
serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike 
small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted what he alleges is an article that appeared in the September 29, 1990 issue of People 
Daily News. The petitioner also submitted what he alleges is an article from 2001 appearing in American Art 
Glass Quarterly. After further investigation, the AAO determined that these articles were fraudulent 
submissions. For example, the falsified People Daily News article dated September 29, 1990 was actually an 
article about Dale Chihuly (rather than the petitioner) that appeared in a September 29, 1971 issue of The New 
York Times. On June 1,2006, the AAO requested the petitioner to submit independent and objective evidence 
to overcome the AAO's findings. The petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's notice. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has been the primary subject of published material in major 
media. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be an article that he wrote appearing in Contemporary Glass 
Artists and Their Work in 1995. The petitioner also submitted what is alleged to be an article that he wrote 
entitled "[The petitioner] Glass 2004." The name of the publication in which the latter article appeared has 
not been identified. The petitioner also submitted what he alleges is evidence of his authorship of a book 
entitled The Spectacle of Beauty of the Glass Work. After further investigation, the AAO determined that these 
documents were fraudulent submissions. On June 1, 2006, the AAO requested the petitioner to submit to 
submit independent and objective evidence to overcome the AAO's findings. The petitioner failed to respond 
to AAO's notice. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted what are alleged to be images and descriptions of his exhibited artwork. The 
petitioner also submitted what is alleged to be an October 7,2004 announcement for an exhibition of his work 
at the Contemporary Arts Museum/Modern Art Gallery of Houston, Texas in October 2004. The record, 
however, includes no information about this museum or evidence from an official representative of the 
museum confirming its display of petitioner's work. After further investigation, the AAO determined that the 
preceding materials were fraudulent submissions. On June 1, 2006, the AAO requested the petitioner to submit 
independent and objective evidence to overcome the AAO's findings. The petitioner failed to respond to 
AAO's notice. 
The specific names, dates, and locations of the petitioner's other exhibitions and showcases have not been 
identified. Nor has the petitioner submitted contemporaneous evidence of his participation in any other 
exhibitions in the form of event programs or art brochures. 
1 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 9 
In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's works have been displayed at significant 
national venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's works have been featured along side those of 
artists who enjoy national or international reputations. Furthermore, the petitioner has not demonstrated his 
regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted largely to the display of his work 
alone. The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on November 28, 2005. 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, however, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 
30 days. As of this date, more than eight months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
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. 9 204.5(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. 200 I), 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. fj 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 fraudulent documents in an 
effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on elements material to his eligibility for a benefit 
sought under the immigration laws of the United States.