dismissed EB-1A Case: Peking Opera

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 12, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a Peking Opera performer. 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 February 2000. 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. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted blurred photocopies of two photographs of what are alleged 
to be the petitioner's performances. This evidence, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's 
sustained national or international acclaim, or that her achievements have been recognized in her field of 
expertise. On November 3, 2004, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner's evidence did not 
satis% any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 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. On appeal, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submits a Certificate of Award (dated September 1996) with an accompanying English language 
translation indicating that she "was granted the title: Excellent National Peking Opera artist." The record, 
however, contains no evidence of publicity surrounding this award or evidence showing that it enjoys a 
significant level of recognition. Simply receiving an award certificate with the word "national" in the title 
does not satisfy this very restrictive criterion. The petitioner must provide evidence showing that her award 
enjoys significant national or international stature. In this case, the record contains no documentation from 
the awarding entity or print media to establish that the petitioner's Certificate of Award is a nationally 
recognized performing arts award. Furthermore, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3), any document containing 
foreign language submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate fiom the foreign language into English. The translation 
accompanying the petitioner's Certificate of Award was not certified as required by the regulation. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box of$ce receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner submits eight additional photographs of what are alleged to be her Peking Opera performances. 
On appeal, the petitioner has listed a dollar amount under each of these photographs, asserting that the dollar 
amount listed represents the box office revenue for the particular production shown in each photograph. The 
record, however, contains no evidence to support the petitioner's assertions. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). In this instance, there is no evidence (such as financial 
records) showing that the productions shown in the petitioner's photographs actually earned the dollar 
amounts appearing under the photographs. The plain wording of this criterion calls for commercial success in 
the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply asserting that one's alleged productions grossed varying revenue 
amounts cannot satisfy criterion. To satisfy this criterion, the petitioner must establish that her performances 
have consistently drawn larger audiences and/or higher box office grosses than most others in her field, at the 
national or international level. The record includes no such evidence. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she meets 
at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(h)(3). 
It should be noted that the record contains a copy of the petitioner's passport, issued in Liaoning by the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China on June 30, 1999. Under "Profession," the 
passport identifies the petitioner as a "Manager," despite the petitioner's claim that she is nationally 
recognized in China for her work as a Peking Opera performer. The petitioner has not resolved this 
discrepancy. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Furthermore, in regard the photographs submitted in support of this petition, while we cannot state with 
certainty that the performer in these photographs is not the petitioner, we note that a recent photograph of the 
petitioner attached to her Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence of Adjust Status, bears 
little resemblance to the woman in the Peking Opera photographs. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a performer 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 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, Irzc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 200 l), 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 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. fj 13 6 1 . Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed.