dismissed EB-1A Case: Peking Opera

U.S. Department of Homeland SecuriQ 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER  date'^^^ 0 6 2005 
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. 8 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. 
Wobert P. ~iemann,birector 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (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. 5 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. 
3 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on August 28, 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 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 the petitioner 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. 3 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Docuntentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted certificates and accompanying English language translations indicating that he received 
a Second Prize Award in the Second Northeast Peking Opera Artistic Television Grand Contest (1992) and an 
Excellent Performance Award in the Fourth Art Festival of Shenyang City (1994). The petitioner also claims 
to have received a Peking Opera Solo Singing Award in the Third Art Festival of Shenyang City in 1991, but 
the record contains no evidence of this award. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Because the preceding three awards are reflective of local 
or regional (rather than national or international) recognition, they do not constitute qualifying evidence under 
this criterion. 
Also submitted were a certificate and accompanying translation indicating that the petitioner "participated in 
the performance and rehearsal" of "Hero's Farewell to Concubine" in China Central Television's "Joint Party 
of Chinese New Year's Eve of 1999." Another certificate and accompanying translation indicates that the 
petitioner participated in a benefit performance sponsored by various organizations in the Liaoning Province. 
The petitioner offers no evidence to show that these two certificates are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards, rather than simply an acknowledgment of his participation in the shows. 
The petitioner also provided a certificate and accompanying translation stating that he "won the First Prize of 
Excellent Youth in the 1996 National Traditional Opera Exchange Show" sponsored by the Ministry of 
Culture. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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. 
The record contains no evidence of publicity surrounding the above competitions or evidence showing that 
the petitioner's awards enjoy significant recognition beyond the context of the event where they were 
presented. The level of recognition associated with the preceding certificates is not self-evident. Simply 
receiving an award certificate with the word "national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive 
criterion. The petitioner must provide evidence to establish 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 above certificates are nationally recognized performing arts awards. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a document entitled "Chinese Opera Plum Blossom Prize Regulation." This 
document does not appear relevant to the present case, however, because the petitioner has provided no 
evidence indicating that he is a "Plum Blossom Prize" recipient. 
Page 4 
In addition to the above deficiencies, the record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any 
performing arts awards subsequent to his arrival in the United States in 1998. The absence of such awards 
suggests that the petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professiorzal or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an article he authored in 2000 entitled "Clothes." The record, however, 
contains no evidence showing that this article was actually published or that it has been widely circulated. 
Nor is there any supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's article is viewed throughout the artistic 
community as significantly influential. 
Evidence ofthe display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted a "Peking Opera show brochure a e" and an accompanying translation indicating that 
he performed in the Peking Opera play entitled ' The brochure lists over thirty other performers in 
this play and does not single out the petitioner as playing a leading role. It is further noted that there is no 
evidence indicating that the performance took place at a nationally reputed venue. 
The AAO has consistently found that this particular criterion is more appropriate for visual artists (such as 
sculptors and painters) rather than for performing artists such as the petitioner. Virtually every actor 
"displays" his work in the sense of performing in front of an audience. In the performing arts, acclaim is 
generally not established by the mere act of appearing in public, but rather by attracting a substantial 
audience. For this reason, the regulations establish separate criteria, especially for those whose work is in the 
performing arts. The petitioner's stage performance in "Sha's Pond will be further addressed under the next 
criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
' brochure page is not prima facie evidence of extraordinary ability, because one need not be 
field in order to participate in a play. The regulation calls for commercial success in the form 
of "sales" or "receipts"; simply documenting the petitioner's participation in a single play cannot meet the plain 
wording of the regulation. The record contains no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" to show that 
that the petitioner's performances drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or resulted in 
greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature the petitioner. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicated that additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO thirty days. The 
appeal was filed on March 31, 2004. As of this date, more than six months later, the AAO has received 
nothing further. 
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." Subsequent to his amval in 
Page 5 
1998, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's primary occupation in the United States involves 
Peking Opera. For example, there is no documentation showing that the petitioner has regularly taken part in 
performances here in the United States. 
For the reasons discussed above, the record is ambiguous regarding the petitioner's acclaim throughout his 
native China, and there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained whatever acclaim he earned in 
China since his 1998 arrival in the United States. Nor has the petitioner adequately demonstrated that he will 
"continue work in the area of expertise." 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.