dismissed EB-1A Case: Peking Opera

FILE: 
IN RE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: \ 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
w 
%obert P. Wiemann, Director 
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 to be untimely. The director considered the 
appeal as a motion to reopen and afirmed denial of the petition. The matter is now before the Administrative 
Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 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. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 10, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a "Chinese Peking Opera Actor." The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be 
sustained. The record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since January 1998. 
Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is 
reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner 
has had ample time to establish a reputation as a performer in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationai recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awardsfor excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted certificates and accompanying English language translations indicating that he received 
the following: 
1. Prize of Excellent Instructor in the 1989 Teenage "New Sprout" Traditional Opera Competition of 
Tianj in City 
2. "Certificate of Performance" acknowledging his participation in the "Show of '91 Chinese Tourist 
Art Festival and Guangdong Carnival" 
3. "First Prize of Performance . . . in the 1996 'National Traditional Opera Performance Contest"' 
4. "Best Performance Prize in Ninth National 'Li Hua Cup' Peking Opera Contest" 
5. "'Opera New Star Award' in 1998 National Traditional Opera Contest" 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The translations accompanying the petitioner's award certificates 
were not certified as required by the regulation. 
Item 1 reflects local recognition rather than national or international recognition. In regard to item 2, there is no 
evidence showing that this certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence, rather 
than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's participation in the event. In regard to items 1 through 5, 
there is no evidence of publicity surrounding the petitioner's awards or evidence showing that they enjoy a 
significant level of recognition. Simply receiving an award certificate with the word "national" in the title 
does not satisfy this very restrictive criterion. Because the statute requires "extensive documentation" of 
sustained national or international acclaim, the petitioner must submit contemporaneous evidence showing 
that his awards enjoy significant national or international stature.' In this case, the record contains no 
documentation from the awarding entities or print media to establish that the petitioner's awards are 
nationally recognized performing arts awards. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, the record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any 
significant performing arts awards subsequent to 1998. The absence of such awards indicates that the 
petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China during the 1990's. 
For example, large-scale competitions typically issue event programs listing the order of events, the name of each 
specific event, and the names of the participating performers. At a competition's conclusion, results are usually provided 
indicating how each participant performed in relation to the other competitors in his or her events. The petitioner, 
however, has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for the competitions in which he received 
awards. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejield for which classrJication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate indicating that he is a 
member of The World Association of Beauty Culture. The record, however, does not include the membership 
bylaws or official admission requirements for this association. There is no evidence showing that admission 
to membership in this association required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by 
national or international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted what he alleges is evidence of his 
authorship of a Peking Opera article. The petitioner provided a "Translation Copy7' of the article, but he did 
not submit the original article. There is no evidence showing that this article was published, and the name of the 
publication in which the article appeared has not been identified. Without evidence of the article's significant 
national distribution or substantial influence within the performing arts community, we cannot conclude that it 
fulfills this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits four undated photos of what are alleged to be his stage performances, but 
these pl~otos do not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. Lj 204.5(h)(3). 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a performer to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field at 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. 
Page 5 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Page 6 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a performer to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field at 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. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record contains no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Gal. 200 I), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.