dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
EAC 05 075 5 1034 JAN 0 6 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 1153(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. 
2~obert 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. 5 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: 
(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. 
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 January 3, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in 
the martial arts. 
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 the following: 
1. "Honor Certificate" from the "People's Republic of Liaoning Province" stating that the petitioner 
was "appraised as the activity Individual" of that province (1999) 
2. b'Honor Certificate" from the "Culture Bureau of Shenyang City" stating that the petitioner was 
"appraised as the activity Individual" of that city (1994) 
3. "Honor Certificate" stating that the petitioner "won the Golden Award of Long Hui Sword 
Competition" at the "'Chao Sai De Cup' of the 3'd Annual International Wushu Communication 
Competition" (1997) 
4. "Honor Certificate" stating that the petitioner won the "'Yong Lin Cup' Ten Outstanding Wushu 
Award" (1990) 
5. Fill-in-the-blank "Certificate" stating that the petitioner "achieved the fist [sic] of M (Middle Age) 
Group C Changquan in the competition 99' China Qingdao International Wushu Championship" 
(August 27, 1999)' 
6. Fill-in-the-blank certificate allegedly issued by the "National Physical Education Sports Committee 
of the People's Republic of China" stating that the petitioner won the "Fourth Grade Award in the 
Male Other Weapon Competition" at the "National Wushu Competition" (1998) 
7. Certificate naming the petitioner a "First Level National Outstanding Athlete of 1999" 
8. Fill-in-the-blank certificate (undated) from the "Chinese Wushu Association" stating that the 
petitioner "passed the Wushu Dan Examination7' 
9. "Honor Certificate" naming the petitioner "National Wushu Outstanding Individual" (1996) 
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 and 2, we find that these awards reflect local or provincial recognition rather than national 
or international recognition. 
In regard to items 3, 5, and 6, we note that large-scale competitions typically issue event programs listing the 
order of events and the names of the participating athletes. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually 
provided indicating how each participant performed in relation to the other competitors in his or her events. 
The petitioner, however, has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for the competitions 
for which he submitted award certificates. 
In regard to items 1 through 9, 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 
Aside from what appears to be a misspelling of the word "first," we find it unusual that the petitioner, who would have 
been age 29 at this competition, would have competed in the "Middle Age" category. 
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 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 the 1990's. The absence of awards in recent years suggests that the petitioner's 
acclaim has not been sustained. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication 
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, 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 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. 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be his membership certificate for the Chinese Wushu Association 
(CWA) indicating "Dan: 7." The petitioner does not explain how attaining level 7 Dan demonstrates that he 
"is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). Further, the record does not include the membership bylaws or the official admission 
requirements for the CWA. There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in the CWA 
required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in 
consideration of his admission to membership. 
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 classijication 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 5 
serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike 
small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that his biographical sketch was included in A Dictionary of 
Contemporary Chinese Martial Artists. The record, however, includes no evidence of the actual published 
material about the petitioner appearing in this publication. The plain wording of this criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit "published material about the alien" and evidence of "the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation." The record includes no such evidence. 
The petitioner also submitted two articles allegedly published in the Liaoning Evening News and the Half 
Island City Newspaper in 2002. The translations accompanying these articles were not certified as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence showing that these publications have 
substantial national readership or that the petitioner has been the subject of media coverage in the United 
State or China subsequent to 2002. 
In response to the director's request for evidence and again on appeal, the petitioner submitted a document 
entitled "Liaoning Evening newspaper." The source of this document has not been identified, nor was it 
accompanied by a certified translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). While the first - . .. . 
seven sentences of this document discuss the newspaper, the final two sentences read as follows: '- 
farmers paint drawings is [sic] well known in Liaoning. His accomplishment in folk art is highly 
complimented by Liaoning evening." These statements are completely irrelevant to the petitioner's case, yet 
for some inexplicable reason they are included in the uncertified translation. At a minimum, these two 
sentences raise doubt as to the accuracy the translation submitted by the petitioner. 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. 
In this case, we find no evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim in the national 
media of China or the United States. 
Evidence that the alien has petj5ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
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 6 
The petitioner submitted a "Letter of Appointment" (dated March 5, 1996) allegedly issued by "Ximen 
Cultural Art Broadcasting, Inc. of Quingdao" stating that it appointed the petitioner to be its "director" and 
"Wushu Movement Designer." This document includes no address, phone number, or any other information 
regarding how this company may be contacted. Nevertheless, it has not been shown that this organization has 
earned a distinguished reputation at the national or international level. Nor has the petitioner submitted 
evidence detailing the dates of his service, his specific responsibilities for the company, and his individual 
importance to its overall success. We find the petitioner has not established that he performed in a leading or 
critical role for a distinguished organization, or that his involvement has earned him sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
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. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on October 17, 2005. The appellate submission was accompanied by 
supporting evidence (which has been addressed in this decision). On the Fonn 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 two 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. Q 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, Znc. 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). 
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. Q 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.