dismissed EB-1A Case: Horticulture Art

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
HLentifying data deleted i.0 
prevent dearly unwmtsd 
~nofpereoealptsacp 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: Df;C 2 1 2005 
EAC 05 128 505 15 
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: 
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. 
> Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
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 Office 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. $ 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: 
(I) 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. 
e 
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. 
3 204.5(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 March 28, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a "Horticulture 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 July 1999. Given the length of 
time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than five 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. 
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 
Page 3 
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 an undated certificate allegedly issued by the "MINIST.RY OF EDUCATION, 
SINGAPORE" stating that the petitioner's "COLLECTION HAS BEEN AWARDED THE BEST FASHION 
ART WORKS IN THE 3RD SOUTHEAST ASIA ART EXHIBITION." There is no indication as to what 
specific "collection" of the petitioner's work that this award certificate refers. Nor is it apparent as to why the 
word "FASHION'' appears on the petitioner's award certificate. In this case, the petitioner claims that her area of 
expertise is horticultural design rather than fashion. Nevertheless, the petitioner's evidence fails to demonstrate 
that the 3rd Southeast Asia Art Exhibition actually took place or that her work was featured there. The date 
and location of this exhibition have not been identified. Nor has the petitioner submitted evidence of a 
brochure from the exhibition or media publicity surrounding the event. 
The petitioner submitted a second undated certificate that states: 
THE NATIONAL ART AWARD 
THIS CERTIFICATE IS HONOURLY AWARDED TO [the petitioner] FOR HIS CONTIBUTION [sic] 
IN PROMOTING TRADITIONAL ART BY DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE 
Aside from the misspelling of "contribution," this certificate incorrectly refers to the petitioner as a male. Further, 
we note that although the wording on the certificate is completely legible, for some inexplicable reason, the 
Department of Culture seal is completely illegible. It has not been explained how "promoting traditional art" 
constitutes excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor, horticulture art. 
It should be noted that the record contains a copy of the petitioner's Malaysian passport, issued on February 
16, 2001. Astonishingly, under "Profession," the passport identifies the petitioner as a "Manicurist," despite 
her claim that she is nationally recognized in Malaysia as a "Horticulture Artist." 
The petitioner has not addressed the occupational discrepancy in her passport. Nor has the petitioner resolved 
the deficiencies regarding the preceding award certificates. 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 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. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate allegedly issued by the "ASIAN ARTS MUSEUM, KUALA 
LUMPUR, MALAYSIA stating that the petitioner received an "APPRECIATION AWARD" in 1997. The 
petitioner does not explain how receiving an "appreciation award" reflects excellence in horticulture art. Further, 
this award reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
Page 4 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Appreciation" 
allegedly issued by the "Department of Education Development" of Malaysia. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(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. Because the translation accompanying the petitioner's certificate was not certified as 
required by the regulation, it cannot be accepted as evidence. Nevertheless, the award is deficient in that it 
reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. Further, the petitioner does not 
explain how receiving a "Certificate of Appreciation" reflects excellence in horticulture art. Finally, we note that 
the uncertified translation refers to the petitioner as a male rather than a female. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate allegedly issued by 'THE MALAYSIA ASSOCIATION OF ARTS" 
for "EXELLENCE ACHIEVED IN GARDENING DESIGN 1996." The certificate bears a computerized 
signature from 'Executive Chairman." There is no evidence showing that this certificate reflects 
national or international recognition rather than organizational recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a second certificate entitled "NATIONAL ARTS AWARD" (1996) that 
refers to the ~etitioner as a "MOST PROMISING ARTIST." The certificate bears a comvuterized sirnature - 
from Chairman of Committee," but the name of the committee and the issuing entity have 
not been identified. There is no documentation from the awarding entity or the print media to establish that 
this award is a nationally or internationally recognized award. Further, we note that this award refers to the 
petitioner as a "PROMISING ARTIST." This visa classification, however, is reserved for those already at the 
top of their field, not for those who are expected eventually to reach that level. 
Simply receiving an award certificate with the word "national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive 
criterion. 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 to 
establish that her award certificates enjoy significant national stature. In this case, there is no independent 
evidence showing the level of recognition associated with the petitioner's awards. Furthermore, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has received any awards subsequent to 1997. The absence of such 
awards indicates that the petitioner has not sustained whatever level of acclaim she may have earned in 
Malaysia during the 1990's. 
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. 
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, recowendations 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 qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted what is alleged to be evidence of 
her membership in the Organization for Academy Art (OAA). The record, however, includes no evidence of 
the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for this organization. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that admission to membership in the OAA required outstanding achievement or that the 
petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of her admission to membership. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted eleven images of what are alleged to be her gardening designs. Without further 
evidence, it cannot be determined that the petitioner's designs are among those pictured. Nevertheless, the 
plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to provide evidence demonstrating that her work has 
been "displayed" at horticulture "exhibitions or showcases." In this case, the specific names and locations of 
the exhibitions and showcases that featured the petitioner's work have not been identified. In fact, there is no 
contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or brochure) demonstrating the petitioner's 
involvement in any horticulture exhibition or showcase in the U.S. or Malaysia. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she 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 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 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. 3 204.5(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 Entelprises, 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). 
Page 6 
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.