dismissed EB-1A Case: Nutrition

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COW 
Menti- data deleted to 
prevent dearky unwarranted 
invasiotl of pmod privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
/J 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAY () 4 2007 
I.... - 
EAC 05 025 52151 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 
&cvgWfli.IC 
w 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center. The petitioner filed an appeal, which the director deemed untimely and treated as a motion to reopen. 
After granting the motion, the director issued a decision aff'hmng the denial of the petition. The matter is now 
before the Admimstrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed with a finding of fiaud 
and material misrepresentation. 
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. 8 1 1 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On March 7, 2007, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that she submitted falsified documentation in 
support of her petition. 
The AAO's March 7,2007 notice stated: 
You signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifjring under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the 
evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) calls for the submission of published materials about the alien in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's 
for which classification is sought. In support of your appeal, you submitted an article b 
- entitled "Is Milk Healthy?% which you are allegedly identified as a specialist in 
child nutrition. ARer further investigation, it has been determined that you falsely substituted your 
name into this article. The AAO was able to obtain the original article at 
htt~://kobieta.rrazeta.pl/edziecko/ 1,54930,236 1 373. html (accessed on February 1 3,2007). Attached to 
this notice is a copy of the article that you submitted and the ori@ article. By falsely substituting your 
name in place of s name twice in this article and attempting to misrepresent the 
nutritional advice she provided for this article as your own, we find that you have sought to obtain a 
visa by fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, 
will not suffice. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
If you choose to contest the AAO's finding, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancies described above. 
Page 3 
The petitioner was afforded fifteen days (plus 3 days for mailing) in which to submit evidence to overcome the 
derogatory information cited above. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a March 13,2007 letter stating: 
I have received your letter and I am in a state of shock. All the documentation that you have provided 
as attachments to your letter I knew nothing about. 
I . . . state as follows: came to the U.S. with m two daughters 02.12.2004 as a tourist to visit my than 
[sic] boyfriend now husband . One month before my visa was to expire I and 
1 sought legal advice how to extend my and my daughters tourist visas or 
our status in the U.S. together with 
 as permanent residents in the office of 
and - 
Legal advice was given to me in Polish by 
 an office employee and I was promised 
as extentions [sic] frst and then status adjustment for myself my daughters and = 
An agreement was written and we paid money because we trusted that law office is the 
legal advice. I am beyond words. I knew no details of the legal procedures = 
1 p 
erformed and I had no part in them. So please be aware that I feel cheated out of my 
trust in legal advice, time, money. All that was done against the law was not known to me until now. 
The petitioner's response included a photocopy of a business card 
employee of the "Law Offices of' rather than ' and 
The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "Retainer Agreement o 
 " stating: 
Date: 8-30-03 
CASE TYPE - Green Card through Labor Department 
Attorney Fee - $10,000 
To start case - $3,000 - PAID CASH 
Upon Labor Approval - $2,000 
UPON WORK AUTHORIZATION $2,000 
INS Filling [sic] Fee - $135.00 + $535.00 plus $1000 per adult payable to U.S. Immigration . . . . 
' The record includes no Form G-28. Notice of Entrv of Amearance as Attornev or Rmresentative. reflecting 
All documentation, information, and other relevant supporting documentation are provided by the 
client, the client has received a copy of forms filled out by attorney or client and client represents that 
information on form(s) is complete and accurate. 
Client hlly understands and agrees to above terms and conditions and knowingly and voluntarily 
signs this retainer agreement without and duress, fraud or coercion. 
Client 
The petitioner's response does not challenge the AAO's finding that falsified material was submitted in 
support of her petition and that her past accomplishments had been misrepresented. According to the 
Retainer Agreement, "All documentation, information, and other relevant supporting documentation" were 
"provided by the client." This statement does not lend credibility to the petitioner's claim that she was 
unaware of the fraudulent documentation. 
 Nevertheless, even if the petitioner had established that an 
employee of 
 or the Law Offices o- had prepared the falsified article, this 
fact would not relieve the petitioner from the obligation of ensuring that all of the representations and 
evidence were true and correct. As previously noted, the petitioner signed the Form 1-1 40, thereby certifying 
under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." See 
section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1357(b); see also, 28 U.S.C. $ 1746 and 18 U.S.C. $ 1621. We cannot 
ignore that the petitioner submitted Forms I-290B, Notice of Appeal to Administrative Appeals Unit (AAO), on 
November 16, 2005 and February 7, 2006, bearing the petitioner's signature and accompanied by the falsified 
article.* According to the two United States Postal Service (USPS) Express Mail envelopes contained in the 
record, both of the petitioner's Form I-290B submissions to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), which 
included the falsified article, were postmarked "Staten Island, NY 10304," the petitioner's local post office, rather 
than "New York, NY 10005" as inhcated in the preceding; Retainer Agreement. We note here that the 
petitioner's address of record is Further, both of the USPS 
Express Mail envelopes specifically identify the petitioner's name and address in the "From" section. The 
preceding evidence fi-om the USPS contradicts the petitioner's claim that she "knew nothing about" the falsified 
article. 
Regarding the petitioner's claim that the and aw office acted inappropriately, we note that any 
appeal or motion based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires: (1) that the claim be 
supported by an affidavit of the allegedly aggrieved respondent setting forth in detail the agreement that was 
entered into with counsel with respect to the actions to be taken and what representations counsel did or did 
not make to the respondent in this regard, (2) that counsel whose integrity or competence is being impugned 
2 
 The falsified article was printed in Polish, the petitioner's native language, rather than English. 
be informed of the allegations leveled against him and be given an opportunity to respond, and (3) that the 
appeal or motion reflect whether a complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities with 
respect to any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. Matter of Lozada, 19 
I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), afd, 857 F.2d 10 (I st Cir. 1988). The record includes no such documentation. 
Section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, 
seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into 
the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which "tends to shut 
off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in a propa 
determination that he be excluded." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the evidence described above, the petitioner has sought to procure 
a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willhl misrepresentation of a material fact. Because the 
petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our 
finding that she submitted a falsified document in support of the petition, we affirm our finding of fraud. This 
finding of fraud shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the 
remaining documentation. As stated above, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 582,59 1-92. The remaining documentation and the director's bases of denial 
will be discussed below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 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 
extraordm ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
CIS 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 199 1). 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 has 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 she has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Thls petition, filed on November 2, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a baker and food technologist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or intemational acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
intemational recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten 
criteria, at least three of whch 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 membership in associations in the field for which classz~cation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their,disciplines or$elds. 
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 intemational level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter of support stating that she 
was a member of the Polish Society of Food Technologists. The petitioner also submitted a certificate issued 
by the Chamber of Craft and Entrepreneurship in Bialystok, Poland stating that she was a member of the 
"commission for journeymen-master examination procedures in profession of a baker." The record, however, 
does not include the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for these organizations. 
There is no evidence showing that admission to membershp required outstanding achievement or that the 
petitioner was evaluated by national or int emational experts in consideration of her admission to membership. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJeld 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 intemational distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or intemational level fi-om a local publication or fi-om a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national dstribution, unlike small local 
community papers.3 
in which the petitioner is allegedly identified as a specialist in child nutrition. As stated previously, the AAO 
found that the petitioner fraudulently substituted her name into this article. Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Because the petitioner 
submitted the preceding falsified article, we cannot accord the other article she submitted on appeal any weight. 
Further, there is no evidence that the other article, entitled "On Present and Future," was published in major 
media. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjield of specijication for which classijication is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to llfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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 def~tion 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. tj 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the 
work of accomplished professors as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value than 
evaluating the work of students. 
As stated previously, the petitioner submitted a certificate issued by the Chamber of Craft and 
Entrepreneurship in Bialystok, Poland stating that she was a member of the "commission for journeyrnen- 
master examination procedures in profession of a baker." The plain language of this criterion, however, 
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. 
Page 8 
requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." The record, however, 
includes no evidence documenting the petitioner's activities as a judge. There is no evidence showing the names 
of the individuals she evaluated or the dates or their evaluations. The absence of contemporaneous evidence of 
the petitioner's participation is a significant omission from the record. Without evidence showing that the 
petitioner's activities involved evaluating experienced professionals at the national or international level, we 
cannot conclude she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation discussing her work experience, but these letters are not 
adequate to demonstrate that she is recognized throughout her field for original contributions of major 
significance. The petitioner has not shown that her work has significantly influenced others in the culinary 
field or how this field has changed as a result of her work. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot 
conclude she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that she performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. The petitioner submitted letters of 
recommendation from her previous employers and affiliated organizations, but the record fails to demonstrate 
that the petitioner was responsible for their success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role." Nor is there evidence demonstrating that the organizations for which the petitioner 
worked had distinguished reputations. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or 
that she meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 includes no such evidence. 
Page 9 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fkaud and material misrepresentation. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted fi-audulent documentation in 
an effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on elements material to her eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States.