dismissed EB-1A Case: Jade Sculpture

hIm@hgchtiUQ 
prevent dearfJr unwarranted 
invasion of pwsonal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(~) 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. 
u 
9 ~obert P. Wiernann, Chief 
" 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (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 April 13, 2006, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2@)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he misrepresented the biographical history 
and achievements of another individual as his own. 
The AAO's April 13,2006 notice stated: 
In response to the director's September 9, 2005 notice of intent to deny your petition, you submitted a 
letter dated October 3,2005 stating: 
I am a self-taught folk artist; I have been passionate about Chinese artsince childhood. Unlike 
most Chinese folk artists who either have a strong family tradition or have sought apprenticeshp 
from certain folk art masters, I mainly learnt the trade from fellow folk artists when I set up a 
Chinese arts and crafts workshop in 1992 in my home town. In order to fully understand 
Chinese ancient article style, in the late 80s, I spent about seven months on the Chinese section 
of the Silk Road, visiting many cities, historic sites, talung photos and mak;ng sketches. In the 
process I made fhends with hundreds of folk artist from different parts of China, folk art 
researchers and professors from Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Xi'an.. [sic] After years of 
preparation, he [sic] was able to visualize the form and broad theme the jade carving would take 
under the invaluable help of my "academic advisors" who provide vital hstoric materials and 
making corrections to the details of my hand drawings of my jade sculpture. 
Astonishingly, the above statements in your October 3,2005 letter are identical in content to those found 
in an October 11, 2005 letter submitted by another alien who resides at your address of record. In your 
duplicative letters, both of you misrepresent the biographical history and achevements of Wang Yinhua, 
a folk artist from Xianju, China, as your own. The above text was plagarized from a March 19, 2003 
article entitled "Sculpture Carves out a Bit of History" appearing in China Daily (accessed at 
http://www.china.org;.cn/eng;lish/culture/58758.htm on April 10, 2006). This article, which discusses 
the jade carving experience of Wang Yinhua, rather than your own experience, contains the following 
original statements which you have plagiarized: 
A self-taught folk artist, Wang said he has been passionate about Chinese art since childhood, 
but it was not until 1992 that he was able to devote all his attention to it. 
"Unlike most Chinese folk artists who either have a strong family tradition or have sought 
apprenticeship from certain folk art masters, I mainly learnt the trade from fellow folk artists 
when I set up a Chinese arts and crafts workshop in 1992 in my home town," explained Wang. 
In 1984, after leaving the army, he spent about seven months on the Chinese section of the Silk 
Road, visiting many cities, historic sites, talung photos and malung sketches. 
In the process Wang made fhends with hundreds of folk artists from different parts of China, 
folk art researchers and professors from Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou and Xi'an. 
After years of preparation, in 1997, Wang set in motion the actual creation of the huge, carved 
jade screen. Having secured adequate funding . . . he was able to visualize the form and broad 
theme the jade carving would take. 
Throughout Wang maintained frequent contact with his "academic advisors" who lent 
invaluable help to his production team, by providing vital historic materials and making 
corrections to the details of his hand drawings . . . . 
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 history and 
accomplishments of Wang Yinhua as your own. ' 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. @ 103.2@)(5), the petitioner was also requested to submit the original 
versions of twelve photocopied documents submitted with the petition. In accordance with the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(5) and (16)(i), the petitioner was afforded twelve weeks in which to respond to the AAO's 
notice. 
The petitioner failed to respond to the AAO's notice. 
 Regarding the petitioner's failure to submit the 
requested original documents, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2@)(5) provides: "If the requested original, 
other than one issued by the Service, is not submitted within 12 weeks, the petition or application shall be 
denied or revoked." 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
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 misrepresenting the history and accomplishments of Wang Yinhua as his 
own, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act by willfully misrepresenting 
material facts. Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, 
fully and persuasively, our finding that he misrepresented the accomplishments of Wang Yinhua, 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)fhrough (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. fj 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 January 3,2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a jade sculpture artist and merchant. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 thejield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of the following: 
1. Certificate conferring the petitioner with the title of "Contemporary Fine Art Master" (June 1999) 
2. "Certificate of Honor" conferring the petitioner with the title of "Great Master of Folk Fine Art of 
Henan Province" (July 1997) 
3. "Certificate of Honor" from the Second Henan Art Festival Organizing Committee conferring the 
petitioner with the title of "Great Master of Folk Fine Art of Henan Province" (October 1990) 
4. "Certificate of Honor" conferring the petitioner with the title of "Expert of Folk Fine Art of China" 
(October 1998) 
5. Certificate stating that the petitioner received an "Outstanding Award in Jade Sculpture of Nanyang 
City" (May 1996) 
6. "Certificate of Honor" stating that the petitioner's jade sculpture received a "Special Award" fi-om 
the Culture Bureau of Shenyang City (August 1996) 
7. "Certificate of Honor" stating that the petitioner's jade sculpture received a second place award at the 
"Second Folk Fine Art Exhibition of Henan Province" (July 1997) 
8. Certificate stating that the petitioner's jade sculpture received the "Outstanding Award at the 
"Kaifeng Folk Fine Arts Work Exhibition" (November 1990) 
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. The translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates 
were not certified as required by the regulation. 
In regard to items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, we find that these awards reflect local or provincial recognition rather 
than national or international recognition. 
In regard to items 1 through 8, there is no evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding the petitioner's 
awards or evidence showing that they command a substantial level of recognition. The record includes no 
evidence that would demonstrate the number of awards given, the geographic area fi-om which the individuals 
eligible for consideration for these awards were drawn from, the criteria for granting these 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 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 1999. The absence of awards during the several years leading up to this petition's 
filing date indicates that the petitioner's acclaim has not been sustained. 
On April 13, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(5), the AAO requested the petitioner to 
submit the original versions of the eight certificates,listed above. The petitioner's failure to comply with the 
AAO's request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
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 photocopies of articles that he allegedly published in Cultural Relic of China, China 
Jade Sculpture, and China Jade. The petitioner also submitted photocopies.of selected pages from what is 
alleged to be his book, entitled Jade Sculpture of Nanyang City, The English language translations 
accompanying these documents were not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). 
Further, there is no evidence of the field's reaction to these publications, nor any indication that they are widely 
viewed as significantly influential. Finally, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's publications had 
substantial national or international readership. 
On April 13, 2006, pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(5), the AAO requested the petitioner to 
submit the original versions of the aforementioned publications. The petitioner's failure to comply with the 
AAO's request constitutes grounds for denial of the petition. 
The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted three photographic images of what are alleged to be his artistic creations. Without 
further evidence, it cannot be determined if 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. 
It must be stressed that an artist does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his or her work to be 
displayed or sold. We find no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's creations 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. 
 Further, 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. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on December 1, 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 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 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. 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 
Ietter(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), 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. $ 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 a document containing false 
statements 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.