dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cl.:arl)' unwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
YINGSONG 
138-16 77TH AVENUE, APT. 61F 
FLUSHING, NY 11367 
FILE: 
IN RE: 
A87 341 784 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
SRC 08 248 51980 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiaty: 
YINGSONG 
YINGSONG 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
SEP 2 7 2010 
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. § 1 I 53(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
FRANK R. LIU, ESQ. 
FRANK R. LIU & ASSOCIATES, LLC 
40 I BROADWAY, SUITE 505 
NEW YORK, NY 10013 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquity that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perty Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
A87 341 784 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on May 6, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. § I I 53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a martial artist, coach, and stand-in artist. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and had 
failed to submit extensive documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
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 
A87 341 784 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). 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. ld and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) Published material 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 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles m the field, m 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
A87 341 784 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 FJd 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir 1 field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd, 345 FJd 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
A87 341 784 
Page 5 
II. Translations 
While not addressed by the director in his decision, the record of proceeding reflects that the 
petitioner submitted numerous non-certified English language translations and foreign language 
documents without any English language translations. The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b) 
provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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. 
Although at the time of the original filing of the petition the petitioner submitted a single 
certified translation, it is unclear which documents, if any, to which the certification pertains. 
The submission of a single translation certification that does not identifY the document or 
documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § I03.2(b)(3). Furthermore, in response to the director's request for evidence pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(8), while the petitioner submitted some certified 
translations, the petitioner also submitted non-certified translations. 
In addition, the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted several documents 
without any English language translations, let alone fully certified translations. Because the 
petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §I03.2(b)(3), the AAO cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is 
not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
III. Primary Evidence 
While also not addressed by the director, the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner failed 
to submit primary evidence of his eligibility for some of the criteria. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ I03.2(b)(2) provides in pertinent part: 
(i) The non-existence or other unavailability or required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. If a required document, such as a birth or marriage 
certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, an applicant or petitioner must 
demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or school records, 
pertinent to the fact at issue. If secondary evidence also does not exist or cannot be 
obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the unavailability of both the 
required document and relevant secondary evidence, and submit two or more 
affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the petition who 
have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary 
evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must 
overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. 
A87 341 784 
Page 6 
(ii) Where a record does not exist, the applicant or petitioner must submit an original 
written statement on government letterhead establishing this from the relevant 
government or other authority. The statement must indicate the reason the record 
does not exist, and indicate whether similar records for the time and place are 
available. However, a certification from an appropriate foreign government that a 
document does not exist is not required where the Department of State's Foreign 
Affairs Manual indicates this type of document generally does not exist. An 
applicant or petitioner who has not been able to acquire the necessary document or 
statement from the relevant foreign authority may submit evidence that repeated 
good faith attempts were made to obtain the required document or statement. 
However, where USCIS finds that such documents or statements are generally 
available, it may require that the applicant or petitioner submit the required 
document or statement. 
As indicated above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to the same 
regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be 
obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is 
demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. In this case, while the 
petitioner submitted secondary evidence, such as photographs with typed captions claiming a 
particular event, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that 
primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained. As such, the petitioner failed to comply 
with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(2), and the AAO will not consider the petitioner's 
secondary evidence. Moreover, without independent, objective evidence, the petitioner failed to 
establish that her assertions in the captions accompanying the photographs are in fact true. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter af Saffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter afTreasure Craft afCalifarnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. 
III. Eligibility at Time of Filing 
The petition was filed on August 13, 2008. However, in response to the director's request for 
evidence and on appeal, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting events 
occurring after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
Therefore, we will not consider these items as evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 8 
C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter af Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set 
of facts. Matter af Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further 
provides, citing Matter af Bardauille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
IV. Analysis 
A87 341 784 
Page 7 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing the following awards or prizes: 
I. Gold Medal in Advanced Women's Xing Yi at the Tenth Annual 
International Chinese Martial Arts Championship (ICMAC) in Orlando, 
Florida from May 23 - 25,2008; 
2. Gold Medal in Advanced Women's Northern Other Style Hand Form at 
the Tenth ICMAC; 
3. Silver Medal in Advanced Women's Chen Style Taiji at the Tenth 
ICMAC; 
4. Silver Medal in Advanced Women's Traditional Northern Sword at the 
Tenth ICMAC; and 
5. Silver Medal in Advanced Women's Traditional Northern Staff at the 
Tenth ICMAC. 
However, the petitioner also submitted copies and photographs of certificates with uncertified 
translations claiming the following: 
A. First Award in Female Self Select Fist Style at the Youth Wushu Show 
Contest (YWSC) in Baoji City, China on May 5, 1987; 
B. First Award in Female Traditional Fist Style at the YWSC; 
C. First Award in Female Self Select Weapon Style at the YWSC; 
D. First Award in the Female Traditional Weapon Style at the YWSC; 
E. First Award in the Combined Exercise at the YWSC; 
F. First Award in the Weapons Show at the First Taiji Fist Competition 
(FTFC) in Baoji City, China in 1987; and 
G. Second Award in Taiji Fist at the Anli Cup First National Teen and Youth 
Wushu Championship (ACFNTYW) in Tianjin, China. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the following 
documentation: 
1. Photographs of a trophy with a typed caption claiming that the petitioner 
won the Gold Cup in Traditional Form at the 2008 U.S. Martial Arts 
Tournament (USMAT) in Washington, DC on August 10,2008; 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
A87 341 784 
Page 8 
11. A copy of a certificate stating that the petitioner "received an exceptional 
score and achieved a placement in the category described at the Hall of 
Fame Open in Canton Ohio"; 
111. A copy of a photograph of an unidentified object reflecting "World Gold 
Cup Award of Appreciation" to the petitioner; 
IV. An uncertified translation of a certificate stating that the petitioner "was 
awarded as the excellent coach in the promotion of nationwide fitness 
program of Huhehaote City" in April 2003; 
v. An uncertified translation of a certificate stating that the petitioner "was 
awarded as the excellent coach in martial art by Hongkou District" in 
November 2004; and 
VI. An uncertified translation of a certificate stating that the petitioner "was 
awarded as the excellent coach in Youth Athletic Sports Center of 
Shenyang Province" in December 2006. 
In the director's decision, he concluded, in part, that the petitioner failed to submit "objective 
evidence regarding the significance of the awards, such as national media coverage of the 
announcement of the awardees." On appeal, counsel argues: 
The petitioner submitted voluminous documents and exhibits in support of her 1-
140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. Most of the documents submitted by 
[the petitioner] clearly suggest that the Chinese Kungfu indeed represents the 
highest level of competition in the field of arts or athlete. 
* * * 
On April 25, 2008, the petitioner performed for hundreds of dignitaries and 
celebrities in front of the United Nations in New York City. A faculty member at 
Gao's Kung Fu Academy in the State of New York, the petitioner has trained 
hundreds of martial artists who went on to become experts in the field. As 
submissions in the record show, the United Nations has made its selection of 
performers based on very high standards and criteria and from a wide range of 
selections all over the world. The petitioner's selection again highlights her 
extraordinary abilities in the field. 
As the record clearly show[s], the petitioner's exposure in the national media is 
profound and her reputation in the field of martial arts both in China and the rest 
of the world is renowned. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every 
element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate her receipt of awards and 
prizes, she must also demonstrate that those awards and prizes are nationally or internationally 
A87 341784 
Page 9 
recognized for excellence. In other words, the petitioner must establish that her awards and 
prizes are recognized nationally or internationally beyond the awarding entities. 
Regarding items 1 - 5, as indicated previously, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she received two gold medals and three silver medals at the Tenth 
ICMAC. However, the petitioner failed to establish that her awards are recognized nationally or 
internationally for excellence in the field. While the petitioner submitted screenshots about the 
11 th ICMAC from www.kungfuchampionship.com. which is the website of ICMAC, a brochure 
from the Tenth ICMAC, the official rules for the Tenth ICMAC, photographs from the Tenth 
ICMAC, and screenshots from www.kungfutody.com regarding Nick Scrima, the organizer of 
the Tenth ICMAC, we are not persuaded that the evidence is indicative of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards. Again, while we do not dispute that the petitioner received 
awards from the Tenth ICMAC, the petitioner failed to submit any independent documentary 
evidence outside of evidence from ICMAC. Even the documentation from ICMAC, which only 
provides background information and rules for the tournament, fails to reflect that the awards are 
recognized nationally or internationally beyond the awarding entity. 
Regarding items A - G, the petitioner submitted uncertified translations of the certificates. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding YWSC, FTFC, 
and ACFNTYW so as to establish that they are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Merely submitting uncertified translations of 
certificates are insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without credible documentary 
evidence demonstrating the national or international recognition of the prizes or awards. 
Regarding item i, the petitioner failed to submit primary evidence of her award at the USMAT. 
In fact, besides the self-typed caption, the photographs of the trophy fail to indicate that it was 
actually awarded to the petitioner. Simply submitting photographs of a trophy without primary 
evidence of the petitioner's receipt of the claimed award is insufficient to demonstrate eligibility 
for this criterion. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
establishing that winning the Gold Cup at the USMA T is a lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award. 
Regarding item ii, while the certificate states that the petitioner "received an exceptional score 
and achieved a placement in the category described above," the certificate fails to indicate the 
score, placement, or category. As the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the prizes 
or awards to be "for excellence," the submission of a certificate that merely reflects the 
petitioner's participation at the Hall of Fame Open will not suffice. Moreover, the petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that any awards or prizes received at 
the Hall of Fame Open are considered to be nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence. Similarly, regarding item iii, we are not persuaded by a certificate that reflects an 
"Award of Appreciation" is tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence. 
Regarding items iv - vi, the petitioner submitted uncertified translations of the documents. In 
addition, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation regarding these coaching awards so 
A87 341 784 
Page 10 
as to demonstrate that they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
Moreover, the awards appear to be local awards rather than nationally or internationally 
recognized awards. 
For the reasons discussed above, we concur with the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Regarding counsel's argument about the petitioner's performance before the United Nations, 
counsel failed to establish how the petitioner's performance is relevant to the awards criterion. 
The record of proceeding contains no documentation reflecting any nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards based on her United Nations performance. While the media 
coverage of the petitioner's performance, for example, may be relevant for other criteria, the 
regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct from one another. 
Because separate criteria exist, USC IS clearly does not view these criteria as being 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
Finally, we note that on appeal the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting that she 
won the Gold Award in the Female First Division at the 2009 International Chinese Traditional 
Martial Arts Competition on October 4, 2009. However, this event occurred after the filing of 
the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175; Matter of 
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the awards 
be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor, and it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the awards are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
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. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
by stating: 
For my excellent and outstanding performance in my field, I was elected as a 
special member to the Chinese Wushu Association [CW A], and received the 
Appointment Letter of Judge for Wushu Dan Certificate in 2005. In 2000, I was 
elected to be research member in Taiji Research Center in Shaanxi Province. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
AS7 341 784 
Page 11 
1. An uncertified translation of a certificate, dated July 8, 2005, from the 
Chinese Wushu Association stating that it "invited [the petitioner] to be 
the judge of Wushu Dao" for the Wushu Faculty of Xi'ao Athlete 
Institute; 
2. A screenshot from www.chinaculture.org regarding the CW A; aod 
3. An uncertified traoslation of a Certificate of Membership from the Taiji 
Research Center (TRC) in Baoji City, China reflecting that the petitioner 
has been a member since October 2000. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner reiterated her eligibility based on 
her claim as a "judge of Wushu Duao Certificate since 2005." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted screenshots from www.wushu.com. A review of the director's decision fails to reflect 
that he addressed any of the petitioner's documentary evidence regarding this criterion. On 
appeal, counsel also did not address this criterion. 
The plain laoguage of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of 
the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which 
require outstaoding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields." In other words, not only must the petitioner 
demonstrate her memberships with associations in the field, she must also demonstrate that those 
associations require outstaoding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. Moreover, in order to demonstrate that membership in ao 
association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstaoding 
achievement as ao 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. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not 
determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
Regarding CW A, besides the fact that the petitioner submitted ao uncertified traoslation of a 
certificate, we are not persuaded that the document demonstrates membership with CW A. The 
submission of ao uncertified certificate claiming that the petitioner was invited to be a judge does 
not necessarily demonstrate that she is also a member of CW A. The documentary evidence 
submitted by the petitioner fails to establish she is, in fact, a member of CW A. Furthermore, a 
review of the screenshot from www.chinaculture.org reflects a general overview of the tasks of 
CW A aod fails to reflect aoy membership requirements so as to establish that membership with 
CW A requires outstaoding achievements of its members as judged by national or international 
experts. A review of the screenshots from www.wushu.com submitted by the petitioner reflect 
that they refer to the "Training Course of the Chinese Wushu Duao System for Overseas 
Practitioners (Regulations)." According to the petitioner's Form G-325A, Biographic 
Information, which the petitioner signed on July 14, 2008, the petitioner indicated that she 
AS7 341 784 
Page 12 
resided at 139-1-17 Qinghe Village, Qingjiang Road, Weibing Borough, Baoji, Shaanxi, China 
from May 2003 to February 2007. The certificate claims that the petitioner was invited to be a 
judge in July 2005. The petitioner failed to establish how the training course for overseas 
practitioners is applicable to her when the record reflects the petitioner's residence in China in 
July 2005. 
Notwithstanding the above, the screenshots from www.wushu.com reflect that the requirements 
for the applicants are for "[t]hose overseas Chinese and overseas practitioners who love Chinese 
Wushu and have practiced Wushu for over two years can apply for the training course." It is 
clear that the screenshots are for a training course for overseas practitioners and not for 
membership with CW A. The petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing that membership with CW A requires outstanding achievements of its members as 
required by national or international experts in the field. 
Regarding TRC, besides the fact that the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the 
certificate, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence regarding the membership 
requirements. Merely submitting documentation of membership with an association is 
insufficient to make a favorable finding for this criterion without documentary evidence 
demonstrating that outstanding achievements are essential conditions for membership. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Published material 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 sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted six articles without any 
English language translations, let alone certified translations. In response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
I. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, "Hundred of Artists Did 
Wonderful Performance, United Nation[s] New Spring Culture Festival 
Hot Starts," April 26, 2008, Yu Yi Peng, World Journal; 
2. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, "United Nation[s] New 
Spring Cultural Festival Starts Today," April 25, 2008, unidentified 
author, World Journal; 
3. An uncertified translation of an announcement entitled, "The Gao's Kung 
Fu Academy Performance in United Nations in April 25," unidentified 
date, unidentified author, unidentified source; and 
4. An uncertified translation of an article entitled, "Fairly Tale Kingdom 
Burst Forth Going Fu Wizard," May 12, 2007, unidentified author, 
American Asia Times. 
A87341784 
Page 13 
In the director's decision, he failed to discuss the above-mentioned documentation. Instead, the 
director addressed the petitioner's authorship of two articles. On appeal, counsel argues the 
petitioner's eligibility based on three self-authored articles. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[pJublished material 
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 sought." In other words, the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about" the petitioner relating to 
her work. As such, articles authored by the petitioner are not articles about the petitioner relating to 
her work. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi) specifically relates to the 
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Therefore, we will address the petitioner's self-authored articles as they relate to the scholarly 
articles criterion later in our decision. 
Regarding items 1 and 2, besides that the fact that the petitioner failed to submit certified 
translations, the articles are about the United Nations New Spring Cultural Festival and not about 
the petitioner relating to her work. In fact, the petitioner is never mentioned in the articles. While 
the petitioner may have performed at this festival along with other performers, we are not persuaded 
that articles that provide a general overview of the festival without any coverage regarding the 
petitioner and her work demonstrate eligibility for this criterion. 
Regarding items 3 and 4, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) states 
that "[ s Juch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation." While the petitioner failed to submit certified translations, the petitioner also failed 
to include the date and author of the article for item 3 and failed to include the author of the 
article for item 4. Nonetheless, similar to items I and 2, the articles are not about the petitioner 
relating to her work. Regarding item 3, the article is about the United Nations New Spring 
Cultural Festival and Gao Xian' s role in the movie Fighter. The petitioner is never mentioned in 
the article. Regarding item 4, the article is about Gao Xian's involvement in various Kung Fu 
movies as the action instructor. The petitioner is mentioned one time as a professional stunt 
artist. As such, we are not persuaded that an article that is primarily about Gao Xian is published 
material about the petitioner relating to her work. 
Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
establishing that the World Journal or American Asian Times are professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. In fact, regarding item 3, the petitioner failed to identify the 
publisher of the article. In general, to qualifY as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifY as major media because of significant 
national distribution, unlike small local community papers3 
3 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, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
A87 341 784 
Page 14 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
I. A certified translation of an article entitled, "Gaoxian Wushu School 
Performed Remarkably in International Martial Arts Championship," 
April 6, 2009, unidentified author, World Journal; 
2. A certified translation of a transcript of an interview, along with a copy of 
the interview, between the petitioner and New Tang Dynasty Television 
on May 29, 2010; 
3. A certified translation of an article entitled, "The Second Session of 
International Chinese Martial Arts Competition," October 9, 2009, 
unidentified author, The Epoch Times: New Epoch Weekly; 
4. A certified translation of an article entitled, "4 Gold Award Winners in 
International Chinese Traditional Martial Arts Competition," October 5, 
2009, Zusi Xu, The Epoch Times; 
5. Screenshots of an article entitled, "Martial Arts Competition Jury 
Comment on Wonderful Tradition of Martial Arts Competition," October 
5,2009, Jane Body, www.epochtimes.com; 
6. Screenshots of an article entitled, "Competition Gold Medal Winner to 
Share the New Martial Arts Experience to Leave School," October 6, 
2009, unidentified author, www.ntdtv.com; 
7. A document entitled, "Martial Arts Competition Gold Silver Award 
Winner Reflections Collection," October 5, 2009, unidentified author, 
unidentified source; 
8. An uncertified translation from Google Translate of an article entitled, 
"Women's Boxing Martial Arts Competition Gold Medal Winner of 
Today's One Day Difference in Other," October 5, 2009, unidentified 
author, www.aboluowang.com; and 
9. An uncertified translation from Google Translate on an article entitled, 
"Women's Boxing Gold Medalist: From Martial Arts Learn Tolerance," 
October 5, 2009, unidentified author, www.epochtimes.com. 
As the petition was filed on August 13, 2008, items 1 - 9 reflect material occurring after the filing 
of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F .R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 
175; Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. We note that a review of these items fail to 
reflect published material about the petitioner relating to her work. The petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary evidence establishing that World Journal, The Epoch Times: New 
Epoch Weekly, www.ephochtimes.com, www.ntdtv.com, and www.aboluowang.com are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Moreover, regarding items 2 and 
7, the petitioner failed to include where the material was published. Furthermore, while some of 
the material was posted on Internet websites, many newspapers or media organizations, 
regardless of size and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore 
this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. However, we are 
A87 341784 
Page 15 
not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given 
website is "major media." The petitioner has not demonstrated that www.ephochtimes.com. 
www.ntdtv.com, and www.aboluowang.com are considered as major media. Also, the petitioner 
failed to include the authors for items 1,3, and 6 - 9. In addition, regarding item 2, the transcript 
of a television interview fails to meet the plain language of the material as there is no evidence 
that it was ever published. Finally, regarding items 8 and 9, we note that the translations from 
Google fail to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) as they do not reflect 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." Further, we are not 
persuaded that Google Translate is credible or reliable since a review of the website reflects that 
it "can make intelligent guesses as to what an appropriate translation should be" and "not all 
translation[ s] will be perfect.,,4 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence 
demonstrating published material about the petitioner and her work in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence ()f the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
At the time ofthe original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
by submitting the following documentation: 
l. An uncertified translation of a certificate, dated July 8, 2005, from the 
Chinese Wushu Association stating that it "invited [the petitioner] to be 
the judge of Wushu Dan [emphasis added]" for the Wushu Faculty of 
Xi'an Athlete Institute; 
2. An uncertified translation of a Certificate of Judgment, dated November 
13, 1987, from the Sports and Athletes Committee of the People's 
4 See http://translate.google.com/aboutlintlien ALL!. Accessed on September 21,2010, and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
When Google Translate generates a translation, it looks for patterns in hundreds of millions of 
documents to help decide on the best translation for you. By detecting patterns in documents that 
have already been translated by human translators, Google Translate can make intelligent guesses 
as to what an appropriate translation should be. This process of seeking patterns in large amounts 
of text is called "statistical machine translation", Since the translations are generated by machines, 
not all translation will be perfect. The more human-translated documents that Google Translate 
can analyse [sic] in a specific language. the better the translation quality will be. This is why 
translation accuracy will sometimes vary across languages. 
A87 341 784 
Page 16 
Republic of China stating that the petitioner was awarded "to be the Judge 
ofWushu Second Level [emphasis added]"; and 
3. A photograph of a medal claiming in the typed caption that it is a "[p]hoto 
of Medal of Judgment of P.R. China." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner claimed: 
I have been the judge of Wushu Duan Certificate since 2005. In the worldwide, 
there [are] only less [than] 100 martial artists [that] are the 9th Dan - the highest 
level in Wushu field. In 1994, the first circulation of 9th Dan just had 11 masters. 
Master Bin Wu - the coach of Jet Li was one of the 9th Dan holders. I was invited 
to be the judge for Wushu level by Xi' An Physical Education University. "Xi'an 
Physical Education University was established in 1954. The university is founded 
under the cooperation of the State General Administration of Sport and the Sports 
Bureau of Shaanxi Province, which is the only academic university for Physical 
education in northwestern China as well. The university adheres to the policy of 
focusing on teaching. "Golden Plan for Olympics" and "Plan for All," stick to 
reform, open-up, and exchange and cooperate with foreign countries and different 
regions." (http://www.xaipe.edu.cnlxwfb/english/english.htm) I have been invited 
as a judge since July of 2005, and have complete authority as a judge over the 
outcome of the results [emphasis added]. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the same certificate as item 1 above but submitted a different 
uncertified translation claiming that "[the petitioner] has been employed by [Xi'an Athlete 
University] as the judge of Wushu Duan Certificate." 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner's documentary evidence failed to reflect 
sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel did not specifically address the 
decision of the director for this criterion. We note that in counsel's brief under the awards 
criterion, counsel mentioned: 
[The petitioner] was appointed a judging referee by China's prestigious Xian 
Sports Academy in 2005. The appointment is considered a high honor and a 
direct acknowledgment of the petitioner's outstanding performance in the field of 
martial arts. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv) requires "[ e ]vidence of the 
alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of others in the same or 
an allied field of specification for which classification is sought." Pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1121-22, we will only address the petitioner'S eligibility for this criterion based on the plain 
language of the regulation. The director's finding of the petitioner's lack of sustained national or 
international acclaim will be addressed in our final merits decision discussed at the end of our 
decision. 
A87341784 
Page 17 
In this case, the petitioner based her eligibility on uncertified translations and a photograph. In fact, 
as indicated above, the petitioner submitted two different uncertified translations for the same 
document. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), we will not accord any weight to this evidence. In addition, the petiitoner 
failed to submit primary evidence of the claimed "Medal of Judgment." Therefore, the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate that she has participated as the judge of the work of others. 
Even if we would accept the uncertified translations, which we do not, we are not persuaded that the 
petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others. Regarding item I, the uncertified 
translation reflects that the petitioner was invited to be a judge. Regarding item 2, the uncertified 
translation reflects that the petitioner was awarded to be the judge. Moreover, the second 
uncertified translation for item I reflect that the petitioner was appointed a judging referee. As the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires "the alien's participation ... as the 
judge of the work of others," evidence merely reflecting that the petitioner was invited or awarded 
to be a judge, or even appointed as a judging referee, without evidence of actually judging or 
reviewing the work of others is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation. The record 
of proceeding contains no evidence establishing that the petitioner has judged a single event or 
person. 
In addition, we note that if the petitioner acted as a referee and simply enforced the rules of a match 
and sportsmanlike competition, then her participation as a referee cannot be said to have involved 
evaluating or judging the skills or qualifications of the participants. Without further evidence 
reflecting her exact responsibilities with the Wushu Faculty of Xi'an Athlete Institute and the 
Sports and Athletes Committee of the People's Republic of China, such as evidence that she 
awarded points or judged individuals for Dan levels, such broad and general evidence regarding 
judging is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of a major significance in the field 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed her eligibility for this 
criterion by stating that "I came to the United States on March 1,2007. I have since contributed 
to the U.S. and U.S. people via my skills." In addition, the petitioner submitted three 
recommendation letters from the following individuals: 
Nick J. Gracenin stated: 
It is my belief that [the petitioner] is an extremely valuable asset to our art and 
sport. American athletes, coaches and judges need strong support from excellent 
experts such as [the petitioner] if we are to compete globally. Please consider the 
petitioner before you on behalf of the American Wushu Community. 
A87 341784 
Page 18 
N atasha Arthy stated: 
This year, I invited [the petitioner] as the stand-in actress for the heroine of the 
film - Fighter. [The petitioner] is a famous martial artist. She has been the stand­
in actress for Ms. Michelle Yeoh in the film - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. 
She has performed as the stand-in actress not only in Crouching Tiger, Hidden 
Dragon, but also in other famous film in China. She has very solid foundation in 
her area including Martial Arts and Stand-in performer. [The petitioner] is a self­
motive artist. In Fighter, she had used her professional skill to perform the 
heroine's outstanding characters in the area of Martial Arts. For her supports, the 
movie has performed very well in the thought of Martial Arts. 
Xian Gao stated: 
[The petitioner] is an outstanding talent in the field of Martial Arts and the 
performance of Martial Arts. [The petitioner] has very solid skills in the Fan-zi 
Fist, Tobbei First, Taiji Fist. Since [the petitioner] was eight years old, [the 
petitioner] jointed in the professional school for study of the Martial Arts. From 
1985, [the petitioner] started to attend province level and state level competitions 
and championships. Due to [the petitioner's] outstanding skill and solid 
foundation, [the petitioner] has been invited as the stand-in actress for lots of 
films. In 1999, [the petitioner] was also invited to be the stand-in actress of 
movie - "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." In 2006, [the petitioner] attended 
the movie - "Fighter" as the stand-in actress for the first actress. During the term, 
[the petitioner] has insisted [on] practicing her skills in the Martial Arts. After 
[the petitioner] came to the U.S., [the petitioner] has continuously worked hard in 
her field. [The petitioner] has worked as a volunteer for teaching the Martial Arts 
Amateurs. In May and August of this year, [the petitioner] will attend the U.S. 
National largest championships which will hold in Florida and in Las Vegas. I 
trust [the petitioner] will get good scores via her efforts. Now [the petitioner] 
starts her step to the movie and the TV shows. Also I trust [the petitioner] will 
also perform more shows in U.S., and her shows will benefit the U.s. and the 
worldwide audiences. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner claimed: 
Currently, I have promoted Chinese Kungfu in the U.S. depends on my 
outstanding skills and talents. At the same time, for better benefits the U.S. 
people and society, I have created a series of body mechanics, which will be fit to 
the people from teen age to the elder. The set of exercises are combined with my 
experience and the advantage of Chinese Kungfu. As an outstanding martial 
artist, I hope my efforts and my contribution to the U.S. and the U.S. people 
immediately. I trust the U.S. society and the U.S. people need my skills and my 
talents. And I hope I can get approval of my application. 
AS7 341784 
Page 19 
In addition, the petitioner submitted photographs with captions indicating that they represented 
the petitioner instructing her students along with several DVDs. The petitioner also submitted 
seven additional recommendation letters. We cite representative examples from the following 
individuals: 
Manny Halkas stated: 
[The petitioner] is an incredible Martial Artist whose master of the skill is only 
surpassed by her affection for the art and teaching it. [The petitioner's] 
knowledge of the art form is held only by the true masters of Kung Fu, and [the 
petitioner] should be held as an example and role model of how the values of 
martial arts should be held and taught. Anyone taught by [the petitioner] should 
consider themselves fortunate and humbled to have learned from such an 
incredible individual. 
Joseph Ahdoot stated: 
[The petitioner] has also helped improve my understanding of the world and grow 
into a better person. I believe that [the petitioner] is a unique human being and 
dare I say the perfect instructor. I hope [the petitioner] may stay in the United 
States so we may still have the honor of learning from her. 
Jason Kong stated: 
What [the petitioner] has brought to the class was her world class martial art skill, 
experience in stage fight as [the petitioner] has participated in movie productions 
at national as well as international setting. In addition, [the petitioner] has been a 
great teacher to the students in the academy. I have learned so much from her 
demonstration, seminars. 
The Zhang Family stated: 
While teaching us, [the petitioner] knows how to target different levels of 
students. For example, [the petitioner] is very patient with young students like 
my kids who are only seven and nine. [The petitioner] would explain and correct 
their moves one by one, and at the mean time, [the petitioner] makes her teaching 
fun so that the kids don't lost interest. 
A review of the director's decision for this criterion reflects errors and inconsistencies. While 
the director cited the language for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v), he discussed the 
petitioner'S eligibility as it pertained to the artistic exhibitions criterion under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vii). A further review of the decision reflects that he duplicated the citation 
of the regulatory language for the original contributions criterion but cited the regulation under 8 
AS7 341784 
Page 20 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which is the leading or critical role criterion. Moreover, the director 
first indicated that "[t]he record contains evidence that her work has made a significant 
contribution to the world of artistic entrepreneur. ,,5 Then, the director indicated that "the record 
contains no evidence that the petitioner's work has made a significant contribution to the world 
of artistic entrepreneurship outside her immediate circle of collaborators, and colleagues." While 
the director ultimately concluded that the evidence does not clearly establish that the petitioner 
has documented original contributions that have made a significant impact on her field, we will 
evaluate the petitioner's documentary evidence and arguments in order to make a final 
determination of the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel refers to the above-mentioned recommendation letters and argues: 
Nothing is further from the truth. If the Director has carefully read all the 
submissions he would have made a different conclusion. The petitioner's 
contributions in her field are widely acknowledged and accepted and appreciated 
by both her peers in the field and the Kungfu fans who highly regard the 
petitioner and consider her a master of martial arts and a role model. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F .3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of "original artistic or athletic-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." 
While the recommendation letters praise the petitioner for her talents, both as a competitor, 
instructor, and artist stand-in, they fail to indicate any original contributions of major 
significance to the field. Instead, the recommendation letters describe personal contributions 
made by the petitioner to her students and the limited projects in which she has worked. The 
letters do not provide any specific information to establish how the petitioner has made original 
contributions of major significance. For example, although Nick J. Gracenin stated that the 
United States needs experts like the petitioner to compete globally, he failed to identify any 
original contributions of major significance made by the petitioner. In addition, while Natasha 
Arthy described her roles in two movies as a stand-in actress, she failed to indicate any of the 
petitioner's original contributions that have significantly impacted the field as a whole and not 
limited to her performances in two movies. Furthermore, Xian Gao merely summarizes the 
petitioner's experience as a stand-in actress and competitor without offering any examples of 
original contributions that have influenced the field. Finally, while the recommendation letters 
from her students all credit the petitioner with developing their skills in the martial arts and 
highlight the petitioner's talents as an instructor, the petitioner's contributions have been 
S The record reflects that the petitioner is claiming eligibility as a martial artist, coach, and stand-in artist and not as 
an artistic entrepreneur as claimed by the director. We further note that the director also erred in his decision by 
stating that "[t]he petitioner is a top female dancer in [her] profession." 
A87 341784 
Page 21 
reserved to her students and not to the field as a whole. We are not persuaded by vague, solicited 
letters that simply repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.6 The lack of supporting evidence 
gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner'S present contributions. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Malter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance. Furthermore, merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner has been unusually influential or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she 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. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner failed to claim eligibility for this 
criterion. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner claimed eligibility and 
stated: 
I recently wrote two scholarly articles in Martial Arts, which will be published in 
"Kungfu Magazine," which is the leading magazine in English on the web, with 
exclusive free access content published only on the web, updated every two 
weeks with new, fresh articles [emphasis added]. It will be distributed to many 
countries [emphasis added]. Established in 1993, it has over 15 years [of! history. 
* * * 
6 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Savo, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aJfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
A87 341 784 
Page 22 
In past, I also published the scholarly articles in "Wulin," "Wuhun," which had 
been the largest publication Kungfu magazine in China, and also in the world. In 
1990, "Wulin," had publication of over 5 millions [sic]. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the following documentation: 
1. A certified translation of a document entitled, "Brief Introduction of the 
Cooperation of Movement and Stillness of TaiChi Boxing"; 
2. A certified translation of a document entitled, "Development of Modern 
Times Tong Bei Quan and the Characteristics of its Practice"; and 
3. A certified translation of a document entitled, "Discussion of Difference 
and Similarity of Ancient Martial Arts and Ancient Military Techniques." 
As indicated previously, the director addressed the petitioner's articles under the published 
material criterion at the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, counsel argues: 
All these articles have been published in highly-regarded and national trade 
magazines. The first two were published on www.kugnfumagazines.com [sic] 
and the third one was on "Wu Lin," a preeminent martial arts magazine in China, 
with a national circulation and distribution. The petitioner'S mastery of the 
martial arts theories and her rich experience in practice make her one of the best 
in the field. 
If one reads these articles he or she would be well informed and acquainted with 
in-depth knowledge of China's cream, the martial arts and related forms. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." Regarding times I and 2, while counsel claimed on appeal that they were 
published on www.kungfumagazine.com. the petitioner claimed in response to the director's 
request for evidence that they will be published and will be distributed. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49; Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175; Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114. 
Moreover, the record of proceeding contains no evidence reflecting that they were published on 
www.kungfumagazine.com. Kungfu Magazine, or any other publication. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Regarding item 3, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the document was published in Wulin or Wuhun, as claimed by the petitioner. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
A87 341 784 
Page 23 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». Furthermore, 
counsel failed to submit any documentary establishing that it was published in Wu Lin. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
at 506. 
Notwithstanding any of the above, in general, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in 
a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the 
articles. In this case, the petitioner's documents do not contain the characteristics of scholarly 
articles and appear to be more for entertainment than scholarly purposes. As there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's documents were peer-reviewed, contain any references to 
sources, or were otherwise considered "scholarly," the petitioner's authorship ofthree documents 
is insufficient to meet this criterion. Furthermore, even if the petitioner established that these 
documents were ever published, which she did not, the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentation supporting her claims that Kungfu Magazine "is the leading magazine in English 
on the web" or Wulin or Wuhun was "the largest publication Kungfu magazine in China, and 
also in the world." Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190. Moreover, counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence 
supporting his assertion that Wu Lin is "a preeminent martial arts magazine in China, with a 
national circulation and distribution." Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
Merely submitting documentation claiming authorship is insufficient to meet the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) without documentary evidence establishing the 
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition and in response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner failed to claim eligibility for this criterion. As indicated previously, 
while the director cited the regulatory language for the original contributions criterion under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), he discussed the petitioner's eligibility as it pertained to 
the artistic exhibitions criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Specifically, 
the director stated that "[t]he petitioner has not shown that his [sic] exhibitions enjoy a national 
reputation or that participation in these exhibitions was a privilege extended only to top artists in 
the field." 
On appeal, counsel argues: 
AS7 341784 
Page 24 
As adequately illustrated in the submissions by the petitioner, [the petitioner] has 
indeed exhibited extraordinary abilities in her field of endeavor, martial arts or 
Kungfu, by winning top prizes in international martial arts competitions in the 
United States, by wining [sic] top prizes in various competitions in China, by 
being appointed judgeships at prestigious institutions in China, by performing for 
international dignitaries and celebrities, by teaching hundreds of martial arts 
students both in China and abroad, by participating in shooting dozens of Kungfu­
themed movies in China and abroad, by being exposed in international and 
national media, by having her professional articles published in publications of 
national circulation and distribution, and by positively influencing the marital 
[sic] arts-loving people of the world. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[e]vidence of the 
display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." In accordance with 
Kazarian 596 F.3d at 1122, the national recognition of the exhibitions indicated by the director is 
not relevant to meeting the plain language of the regulation. Instead, the petitioner must submit 
evidence establishing that her work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
While we do not agree with the basis of the director's decision in requiring national recognition, 
we ultimately concur with the decision of the director but for a different reason. 
While counsel refers to the petitioner's claims of awards, published material, judging, original 
contributions, and scholarly articles, we have already discussed the petitioner's eligibility and 
documentation as they pertained to the appropriate criteria. The regulatory criteria under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist, 
USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to 
meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an 
alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
Moreover, while the record of proceeding contains evidence of the petitioner's martial arts 
performances at private and public entities, as well as in movies, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) indicates that it is intended for visual artists rather than 
for martial artists and stand-in artists such as the petitioner. It is inherent to the work of a 
performing artist to perform before an audience. We find that the petitioner's performances are 
far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x) and will be discussed under that criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner failed to claim eligibility for this 
criterion. However, in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner claimed: 
A87 341784 
Page 25 
The compensation I received for my performance in Movies based on my 
extraordinary ability in the 1980s was about 4000 Yuan/month, which was 20 -
80 times of the average salary in China, which was about 50 - 200 Yuan/month. 
During the term of attending Movie - Fighter, I had the high remuneration for my 
performance as the one of the important roles in the movie. I had lived in the 5 
stars [sic] hotel, high level profit and got the high salary - EUR6000.00 per 
month. At the same time, the director purchased the high insurance for me. The 
following performance shows my engagement history in the field of my Kungfu 
skills. 
1987 TV show - Robbing 200,000; 
1988 Movie - Yellow River Chivalry - Sword Man; 
1990 TV Show - Generals of Yang Family; 
1991 TV Show - King of Qing: Shimin Li; 
1993 Movie - Legend of Emperor Yan; 
1994 Movie - Female Emperor: Zetian Wu; 
1998 Movie - Flying Dart: Santai Huang; 
2006 Movie - Fighter (which was published in New York Tribeca Film Festival) 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services. On appeal, 
counsel argues that the petitioner's "salary offered in China in the 1980s was many times of the 
average salary in that country." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[e]vidence that the 
alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 
to others in the field [emphasis added]." The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
of her salary or remuneration for services supporting her claims in various television and movie 
roles. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that 
she commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to 
others in the field. The petitioner's and counsel's assertions that she received "20 - 80 times of the 
average salary in China," "lived in 5 stars [sic] hotel," and "EUR6000.00 per month" are 
unsupported by any documentary evidence. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190; Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 
n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
Simply alleging a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services is insufficient to 
demonstrate eligibility for this criterion without evidence reflecting that the petitioner's salary or 
other remuneration for services is significantly high when compared to others in her field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, c,ompact disk, or video sales. 
A87 341784 
Page 26 
The petitioner did not indicate eligibility for this criterion at the time of the original filing of the 
petition or in response to the director's request for evidence. As such, the director did not 
address this criterion in his decision. On appeal, counsel argues 
But to offer evidence of her commercial success in the United States while her 
immigration status is still uncertain is being unreasonable since her abilities to be 
commercially successful a [sic] the present time is hindered by her abilities to 
travel out of the United States to be actively involved in the movie business which 
would normally render her very valuable commercially. Her past experiences are 
strong harbingers of her future success, if her current appeal prevails and her 
immigration status is obtained. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(x) requires "[ e ]vidence of 
commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales." In other words, the petitioner is required to submit evidence 
reflecting that she had commercial successes. We are not persuaded by counsel's claim that the 
petitioner is prevented from demonstrating commercial successes because she is unable to travel 
outside of the United States. In the discussion of the previous criterion, the petitioner has indicated 
her involvement with various movie and television shows in China, as well as more recent 
involvement in the movies Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Fighter. The fact that the 
petitioner is currently unable to travel outside of the United States is irrelevant in order to establish 
eligibility for this criterion. 
Notwithstanding the above, the record of proceeding reflects claims that the pehtlOner has 
performed at various events such as the Adult Day Health Care, United Nations Spring Festival 
Program, and Farewell Party for Biwei Liu, General Ambassador for China. However, this 
regulatory criterion requires evidence of commercial successes in the form of "sales" or "receipts;" 
simply submitting evidence indicating that the petitioner participated in performances or was 
involved in a movie or television program cannot meet the plain language of this criterion. The 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence in form of "box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales" to demonstrate her commercial successes. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
B, Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner failed to establish eligibility for any of the criteria, of which at least three are required 
• 
A87 341784 
Page 27 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits dete=ination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner claimed some success at winning awards in martial arts, instructed amateurs in various 
age groups, and participated as a stand-in artist in some movies. However, the accomplishments 
of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that she "is one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that she "has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
While the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we note that the petitioner based her eligibility, in part, on amateur and 
youth level awards. Awards won by the petitioner in competitions that were limited by her age 
or awards received from coaching amateur and student athletes do not indicate that she "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). There is no indication that the petitioner faced significant competition from 
throughout her field, rather than mostly limited to a few individuals restricted by age or other 
similarly limited competition. USCIS has long held that even athletes perfo=ing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. 7 Likewise, it does not follow 
that a martial arts competitor like the petitioner who has had success in a competition restricted 
by age, should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant 
visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the 
very top of their field of endeavor." 
7 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. 1\1. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[TJhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but 
rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is 
consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (ND. 
III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the 
court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is 
reasonable. 
• 
A87 341 784 
Page 28 
Similarly, even though the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under the judging criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the record of proceeding contains no 
evidence reflecting the caliber of the individuals allegedly judged. Judging local, amateur, or 
student competitions is not indicative of "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to 
the very top of their field of endeavor." See, e.g., Matter 0/ Price, 20 I&N at 954. Evaluating the 
work of the highest level of Dan as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating the work of amateur and student martial artists. 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that a "petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's published material about the petitioner relating to her 
work must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted 
to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), therefore, depends on the extent to which 
such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. § 204.5(h)(2). Although the petitioner failed to establish eligibility 
for this criterion, the petitioner only submitted four articles, in which three of the articles never 
mention the petitioner. We are not persuaded that this amount of coverage of the petitioner is 
sufficient to establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly 
restrictive classification. 
In addition, while the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the original contributions 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), besides photographs and DVDs 
of the petitioner instructing her students, the petitioner relied on recommendation letters to 
demonstrate her eligibility. uscrs may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter o/Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. (Commr. 
1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the 
petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(I )(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(I )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). In this case, the record of proceeding reflects uncertified translations and 
foreign language documents without any English translations. The petitioner claimed eligibility 
for the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) without 
• 
A87 341 784 
Page 29 
submitting sufficient documentation of her membership in CW A and failed to submit any 
documentation regarding the membership requirements for TRC. Furthermore, the petitioner 
failed to comply with the basic regulatory requirements such as providing the date and/or author 
of the published material criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted documents claiming that she qualified under the scholarly 
articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) but failed to submit any 
documentation reflecting where it was published. In addition, the petitioner claimed eligibility 
for the high salary criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) without 
offering any documentary evidence of her salary or comparison of her salary with the salaries of 
others in her field. Also, the petitioner and counsel made various assertions without any 
supporting evidence. Finally, the petitioner relies heavily on secondary evidence without 
evidence demonstrating that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained. We are not 
persuaded that an individual with sustained national or international acclaim could not submit 
primary evidence of her accomplishments. 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she "is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated her "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
When compared to the accomplishments of Nick J. Gracenin who claims to have "produced over 
twenty members of U.S. teams including several national champions," it appears that the highest 
level of the petitioner's field is far above the level she has attained8 In addition, Mr. Gracenin 
claims to hold "the record for medals won at world championships by a member of the International 
Wushu Federation," named "one of the top' 100 Influential Martial Artists of the Century' ," and 
was voted "Man of the Year" by Inside KungfU. When comparing the achievements of the 
petitioner, who failed to even claim that her students have achieved any level of recognition, the 
petitioner falls far short in establishing that she is within that "small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top ofthe field of 
endeavor. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
V. Conclusion 
8 See http://nickgracenin.comfOpage id~2 that was submitted by the petitioner in support of the recommendation 
letter. 
• • 
A87 341 784 
Page 30 
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 and 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)(1 )(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
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 at 1043, 
affd, 345 FJd at 683; see also Solfane v. DOl, 381 FJd at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). While we find that the director's decision contained 
several errors, we find those errors to be harmless and based on our review on a de novo basis, 
the record of proceeding fails to demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility for this classification. 
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.