dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 2, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner indicates that he is a Kung Fu master and warrior monk seeking classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A). This tirst preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their tield through extensive 
documentation. ' 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center revoked the approval of Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker, concluding that the record did not establish eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Specifically, the Director found discrepancies and inconsistencies relating to the Petitioner's 
immigration history and supporting documentation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence. He also asserts that the Director improperly 
revoked the approval of his petition. In February 20 I 8, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss 
(NO! D) based on additional discrepancies in the record found during an overseas investigation. The 
Petitioner responded with a statement and additional exhibits. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants with extraordinary 
ability 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Mal/er o[C-L-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Maller o(Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sutlicient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Maller of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sutlicient cause" where the evidence of 
record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of 
proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the 
time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Mauer of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
2 
.
Matter ofC-L-
By itself , the Director's realization that a petiti on was incorrectly approve d is good and suffic ient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. ld. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rig hts in the beneficiary of the petiti on, as approval of a visa petition is b ut a preliminary 
step in the vis a application proce ss. !d. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approva l of the 
petition , entitled to an immigr ant visa. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Revoca tion 
Initiall y, the Direc tor approved the petition. Upon furt her review, he iss ued a n otice of intent to 
revoke and ultimately revok ed the approval. We have con sidered all ev idence res ponding to the 
ground s of revoca tion on appeal and in response to our NOID, discussed below. 
In revoking the approval of the petition , t he Director questioned the Petitioner's claimed 
qual ificatio ns as a warrior from the Shaolin Buddhis t Temple . Specifically; the Directo r noted the 
Petitioner 's marriage and fatherin g of a child , which appeared contrary to an aspect of Buddhism. 
Accordingl y, the Director determin ed that "this role of warrior monk wou ld have ceased at the time 
ofhis marri age ( 2009)." 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner provided fraudul ent award certific ates from the 
"Nation al Juniors' Martial Arts Elite Champion ship s" in 2004 and the "Natio nal Juniors' Martial 
Arts Tournament" in 200 5. Specific ally, the Director found that the Petitioner was over 2 1 years of 
age at the time he received the awards and would have been ineligible to compe te as a junior. 
Moreover , the Director point ed out that the certificates contained the recognized Olympic s' logo of 
five interlocked rings. However, the Internati onal Olympi c Committee declined to allow the 
Internation al Wu~ hu Federati on to be included in the Olympics ; and therefor e, it was not perm itted 
to use the Olympic tradem ark. 
In addition , the Director concl uded that the Petitioner's two awards at the " First World Traditiona l 
Wushu Festival" in 2004 and "The Second World Traditional Wushu Champ ionsh ips" in 2006 were 
issued for participation. further , the Director indicated that the certificates were generic, fill-in- the­
blank, and although official results are posted on the International Wushu Federati on' s website for 
the event s, the Petitioner was not included amon gst the winners . 
ln response to the director 's notic e o f intent to revoke, the Petition er provided a letter from 
abbot of the Shao lin Temple , who explained that "even the monk s who have taken the vows can 
choose to disavo w at any time " and "if a warrior monk of advan ced leve l in the Warrior Monk Troop 
chooses to disavow, he is still considered a warrior monk of the Shao lin Temple , as long as he 
conti~ue s to a dvocate and pass down Shaolin Kung Fu and Chan outside the templ e." Further , 
stated that even though the Petition er disavowed and married, he is still conside red a 
warrior monk. The Direc tor, however , determined that because there were incon sistencies in 
letter s, the statement s were " unfounded and potentially false." In part icular , the Director found 
3 
.
Mauer (?fC-L-
that the timelin e of the Petitioner's reside nce and employment in the United States did 
not match previous immigr ation til ings. For instance , the Direc tor pointed out that even tho ugh the 
Petition er was prese nt at the Shaolin Temple during a U.S. Citize nship and Imm igration 
Services (USCIS) site visi t in 2008, never mentioned the Petitioner 's residence or servi ce 
to the Shao lin Templ e. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted letters from the 
and the 
claiming that the Petitioner rece ived the awards que stioned by the Director. Specific ally, the letters 
from and indic ated that the Peti tione r competed in the 18-39 age category at the 2004 
and 2005 junior championship s. Regarding the "First World Traditional Wushu Festi va l" and "The 
Second World Traditional Wushu Championships, " the letter from HAS stated that Shaolin Temple 
warrior monks are not allow ed to participate in any co mpetitions ; however the abbot decided that the 
Petition er could partic!pate but "his name and final result shall not appea r in the result book of the 
competition. " In addition
, the Petitioner pre sented anot her letter from Abbot Shi who conti rmed the 
Peti tioner's attendances at the competitions and repeated letter. 
In revokin g the approval of the petition, the Directo r quest ioned the authe nticity of the lette rs. In 
particular, the Director noted that the letter s were not written on the o rgan izations' letter heads and 
no cont act information was provided. In addition , the Director found that the letters appeared 
"similarly forma tted." 
On appea l, the Petitioner argues that the Director improperly discredited lette r due to his 
'tai lure to list every detai l of the Petitioner's itinerary in the United States. In addi tio n, the Petitioner 
claims that he provided suffici ent evidenc e to· show that he recei ved the awards. further, he 
contend s that the Director utili zed the drafting standards for docu ments in the United States rather 
than in China , and the use of the Olympic ring tradema rk is not relevant to his eligibilit y. 
The Peti tio ner also subm its a letter from who summ arizes his previo us lette rs a nd 
indicate s that "[i]t was not his intention to list all of [the Petiti oner 's] travel histor y to the U.S.," 
including to the Shaolin Temple. In addition, the Petition er provide s documenta tio n 
relating to stan dard Chinese document formatting , using "Red Letterheads" by Chine se governme nt 
agencies , a nd utilizing print ed seals on Chin ese documents ("chop system"). Moreover, the 
Petition er offered additional letters from and Speciti cally, relating to the 2004 junio r 
festival , he prese nted a "Certifying Letter" from asserting that the statement s in its previous 
letter were true . Moreover , in regards to the 2005 junior champi onsh ip, he offer ed a "Ce rtifying 
Letter " from claimin g that its pre viou s s tatemen ts were true, and "we don' t keep detailed 
material s a bout his particip ation or the Championship for that long, this certifying letter is the only 
proof we can provide.'' We note that none of the letters include add ress es or contact information, 
nor do they identify who wrot e the letters ; instead the letters are stamped with the organiza tions ' 
name s. 
' 4 
.
\ 
Matter ofC-L-
During adjudication of the appeal, USCIS forwarded the docum entation overseas to verify that 
wrote the letter s and the Petitioner recei ved the awards. The overseas investigatio n, 
however , was unable to confirm whether the letters in the record from were gen ume. 
Althou gh the investiga ting office rs a ttempted to contact several time s, they were unable 
to speak directly to him to verify that he wrote the letters or discuss the veracity of the content. 
Further, our ove rseas investi gators contacted the International Wushu Federation, who confirmed 
that the Petitioner received awar ds from the "First World Tradition al Wushu Festiv al" and "The 
Second World Traditional Wushu Championship s." However , when the investigator s contacted the 
National Wushu (Ma rtial Arts) Spo rts, Trainin g and Comp etition Depart ment One, a representative 
was unable to locate any information relating to the Petitioner receiving the award s from the 200 4 
"National Juni ors' Martial Art s Elite Champi ons hips" and the 2005 " National Ju niors' Mart ial Arts 
Tournam ent." In addition, the representative indicated severa l inaccuracies and discrepancie s 
present on his award certifi cates that called into question their authenticit y. In particular, the 
represent ative disclosed that the Petitioner's 2004 certificate listed the incorrect name, time, and 
place of the competition. Moreover, the 2005 certificate did not include the competition category. 
Acco rdin gly, we notified the Petitioner of the deroga tory inform ation in our NOlO. In response, the 
Petitioner argues that the investigators did verify that lette rs were authen tic throu gh 
correspond ence with captain of the warrior monk troop. The investigators contacted 
that Shaolin Temple and spoke with who agreed to accept the copies of letters and ask 
· for verification of the documentation. Aft7r the third contac t, claimed that 
reviewed all of the letters and confirmed that he issued them. The investigator s, however, 
were not ab le to directly speak to to verify his revi ew of the letters or about the veracity of 
the content. 
further, the Petitioner submits a state ment claiming that he participated in the relevan t com petition s 
and received the awards. The Petitioner contends that the invest igato rs contacted the incorrect 
organization , and that instead the sponsoring organiza tion was the General Administr atio n of Sports 
of China , and " and several others" hande d out the awa rds. We do not find t he 
Petitioner 's arguments to be cred ible or su fficient to overcome the nega tive find ings with regar d to 
the awards certificates. fi rst, the investigat ors contac ted the National Wushu (Martial Arts) Spo rts, 
Training and Competition Department One becau se it specializes in the Nationa l Martial Arts Skills, 
which is the Chinese name of the competition listed on the award certificate provided by the 
Petition er. Sec ond, the represen tative had knowl edge of the competiti on as it fell under the purview 
of his departme nt. Third , the representative provided spec ific informa tion regarding the competition 
and certificates. Finally, the repre sentati ve had recor ds and results from the competition s. 
The Petiti one r must resolv e inconsistencies in the record with indepen dent , objective ev idence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BJA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevalu ate the reliability and suffic ienc y of other eviden ce 
submitted in support of the reque sted immigr ation benefit. !d. For the reasons disc ussed above, the 
Petitioner has not suftici ently resolved the discrepancies noted by the Director or the issues raised in 
our NOl O. Accordingly , we find no error ih the Direct or's revocation based on unresolved 
5 
Matter o(C-L--
discrepancies in the record that call into question the Petitioner's eligibility, and the appeal will be 
dismissed on that basis. 
B. Material Misrepresentations 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. In addition, we tinct that he has misrepresented material tacts. 
The regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) permits a petitioner to submit "receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." As 
discussed above, the Petitioner provided fraudulent award certificates claiming that he received 
awards from the 2004 "National Juniors' Martial Arts Elite Championships" and the 2005 "National 
Juniors' Martial Arts Tournament." In general, a few errors o·r minor discrepancies are not reason to 
question the credibility of an individual or an employer seeking immigration benefits. See Spencer 
Enterprises Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes serious 
errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and discrepancies after an 
officer provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to 
conclude that the facts stated in the petition are not true. See Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591. In this case, 
the discrepancies and errors lead us to conclude that the evidence of the Petitioner's achievements, 
which is material to his eligibility as an individual of "extraordinary ability," is neither true nor 
credible. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that 
the individual willfully make a material misstatement to a go~emment ofticial for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. See Maller of"Kai f-ling Hui, 15 l&N 
Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as 
distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See 
Maller of Tijam, 22 l&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, 17 I&N Dec. 
22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the misrepresentation must be one which "tends to 
shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which might well have 
resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of" Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 
1980). 
Accordingly, for an immigration ofticer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa 
petition proceedings, he or she must determine: I) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false 
representation to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the 
misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See Maller 
o(ivf-, 6 l&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Maller of L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961 ); Kai f-ling Hui, 15 
l&N Dec. at 288. 
First, the Petitioner misrepresented his accomplishments and achievements by claiming to have 
received awards from the 2004 "National Juniors' Martial Arts Elite Championships" and the 2005 
"National Juniors' Martial Arts Tournament." A misrepresentation can be· made to a government 
6 
Matter ofC-L-
official in an oral interview, on the face of a written application or petttton, or by submitting 
evidence containing false information. INS Genco Op. No. 91-39, 1991 WL 1185150 (April 30, 
1991 ). Here, the Petitioner provided fraudulent documentation and made untrue claims about 
himself~ constituting false representations to a government official. 
Second, the Petitioner willfully made the misrepresentations. The Petitioner signed Form I-140, 
certifying under penalty of pe1:jury that the petition and the submitted evidence are all true and 
correct. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). On the 
basis of this affirmation, made under penalty of perjury, it must be concluded that the Petitioner 
willfully and knowingly made the misrepresentations. 
Third, the evidence is material to the Petitioner's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to 
the eligibility criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa petition. See 
Ng, 17 1&N Dec. at 537. Here, the misrepresentations regarding his award relate to eligibility under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Accordingly, by filing the instant petition, making false representations, and submitting fabricated 
documentation, the Petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided under the Act through a 
willtul misrepresentation of material !acts. This tinding of willful material misrepresentation shall 
be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. See section 212(a)(6)(C) of 
the Act. 
C. Additional Eligibility Issues 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner did not overcome the Director's basis for revocation, we 
need not fully address other eligibility issues evident in the record. However, we will brief1y address 
the Petitioner's argument, made on appeal, that even if_he does not meet the awards criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), he still meets at least three criteria and has shown eligibility as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. We lind that the record ref1ects that he only meets one criterion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner demonstrated that he participated as a judge at martial arts competitions 
from 2009 to 2013, thus complying with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
As indicated above, the overseas investigation confirmed the Petitioner received two certificates 
from the World Traditional Wushu Festivals. These_awards, as pointed out by the Director, are 
acknowledgements of participation rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the tield as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Moreover, although 
the Petitioner claims that his membership with the Shaolin Temple satisfies the membership criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the record does not establish that outstanding achievements are required 
for membership as judged by recognized national or international experts as most individuals begin 
membership around the age of eight based on proving their devotion to Kung Fu and Buddhism. In 
7 
.
Malter ofC- L-
addition, while the Petitioner claims to meet the criterion for publi shed material about him under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), he presen ted partial and summary tran slatio ns of articles.' Further, he did 
not provid e the required titles, dates, and authors, and the articles mention his nam e or contain a 
picture but are not about him .2 Also, the Petiti oner did not show that the articles were published in 
professional or major trad e publications or other major media. Finall y, even thoug h 
asserted that the Petitioner is "a leading member " of the Shaolin Temple , he does not provide 
specific information to demon strate that the position qualifies as a leading role under C.F.R: 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(v iii). 
The Petiti oner 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria . In addition, the ove rall record does not support 
a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of experti se requi red for the classi tication · 
sought. The Petitioner seek s a highly restrictive visa classificatio n, intended for individual s already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progre ssing toward the top. USCIS 
has long held that even athlet es perfo rming at the major league level do not automati ca lly mee t the 
"extra ordinar y ability" standard. Mauer ofPri ce, 20 I&N Dec. 953 , 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). In 
the case here , the Petition er h as not shown that his judging experi ence is indic ative of the required 
sustain ed national or intem ational acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Without 
documentation that sets him apart from others in his tield, such as eviden ce that he has a consisten t 
history of judging nationally or internationally recognized marti al artists, the Petitioner has not 
establish ed his local or regional judging places him among that sma ll percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(2). Further , the Petitioner has not provided 
docum entation demonstrating that his submitted awa rds and press coverage are consi stent with being 
among the small percentag e at the top of his tield or having a " career of acclaimed work in the tield" 
as contemplated by Congre ss. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Moreove r, the record 
does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner's work has garnered national or interna tional 
acclaim in the field. See secti on 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for cla ssification as an individual of 
extraordin ary ability, and he ha s made a willful n1isrepresentation of material facts. 
ORDER: The appeal is dism issed. 
Cite as Mauer ofC- L-, ID# 451571 (AAO Apr. 2, 20 18) 
1 See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3). 
2 
See, e.g.. Negro-Piumpe v. Okin, 2:07 -CV-820-ECR-RJJ at •1 , •7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles regardin g 
a show are not abou t the actor). 
8