dismissed EB-1A Case: Peking Opera

naena8fip dab deP&d to 
p3~vent dearly unmrrana 
Bavasion of prswal ppivaey 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: m Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: %,, .v, <, - .% ~Qbth 
WAC 05 198 51408 
IN RE: 
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. 
u 4: Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California 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. 3 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. 
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 or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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 June 29, 2005, 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 1993. Given the length of time 
between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than twelve years), 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. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or interrzationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate (issued on May 17, 1991) stating that he "won the Silver Prize for 
Peking Opera Team of the National 'Work hard for its prosperity' Arts show." The petitioner also submitted a 
"Certificate of Honor" (issued on March 6, 1989) stating that "Three Fork in a Road," an opera in which he is 
alleged to have appeared, "won first prize in the Second Traditional Opera performing Grand Contest." The 
evidence indicates that these awards were group awards rather than individual awards making the petitioner's 
level of contribution difficult to ascertain. It cannot suffice that the petitioner was one member of a large group 
that earned collective recognition. 
The petitioner's initial submission also included a "Certificate of Award" (issued on October 19, 1992) stating 
that he earned the title "National Top Ten outstanding Peking Opera Performer." Simply receiving an award 
certificate with the word "national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive criterion. There is no 
evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding the petitioner's receipt of this award or evidence showing 
that it commands a substantial level of recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a "Certificate of Appreciation" allegedly issued on December 3, 2003 by the 
American Chinese Communications Association for his participation in "Asian Month in New York City" 
(December 3, 2003). This award, however, reflects local or institutional recognition rather than national or 
international recognition. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 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. Further, because the statute requires "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim, the petitioner must submit evidence showing 
that his awards enjoy significant national or international stature. In this case, there is no supporting 
documentation from the awarding entities or the print media establishing that the petitioner's awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized performing arts awards. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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 
Page 4 
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. 
The petitioner submitted a "Letter of Appointment" dated November 12, 1987 naming him a member of the 
Association of Chinese Dramatists (ACD). 
The petitioner also submitted a photocopy of what is alleged to be his membership card for the Association of 
Chinese Artists (ACA). The membership card lists the petitioner's age as "48" and an issuance date of 
"March 12, 1990." We note, however, that the petitioner was born on February 17, 1957. On March 12, 
1990, the issue date of this membership card, the petitioner would have been age 33 not age 48. In addressing 
this discrepancy, the director's decision stated that "the authenticity, value, and credibility of this card has not 
been established." We concur with the director's finding. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
Regarding to the age mistake showing [sic] on my membership card of Association of Chinese artist, 
the fact is: when the association first issued this card to me in March 12, 1990, my age showed [sic] on 
the card was 33 years old, it was correct. Unfortunately, I lost this membership card for unknown 
reason in January 2005, and I immediately contacted the association after I knew the truth and re-apply 
for membership card, eventually they agreed to give me a copy of the old membership card in stead 
[sic] of the lost one. However, what happen was the staff of the association put my current age 48 on 
the new card but still marked the original issuing date of March 12, 1990, this is the reason why the 
issuing date of the card doesn't match my actual age at that moment . . . . 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence from an official representative of the ACA to corroborate his 
explanation. On appeal, the petitioner submits a photocopy of a second version of his ACA membership 
card.' The appellate version of the ACA membership card shows an issue date of March 12, 1990; however, 
the petitioner's age has been changed to reflect age 33. The petitioner's above explanation, however, 
indicates that his membership card with the "correct" age was "lost . . . in January 2005" and that he was 
issued a "new card" which listed his age as 48. The petitioner does not indicate how he was able to submit a 
photocopy of his original membership card (which shows his correct age, 33, and was allegedly "lost . . . in 
January 2005") at the appellate stage, yet unable to submit that same version at the time of filing. Based on 
the preceding observations, we find that the petitioner has not resolved the discrepancy regarding his ACA 
membership card. 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 
1 In light of the initial discrepancy, we find that a photocopy of another version of petitioner's ACA membership card is 
not acceptable evidence. The petitioner's failure at the appellate stage to submit an original copy of either his "new" or 
"old" ACA membership card (rather than a photocopy) is a significant omission from the record. 
a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. 
The petitioner's appellate submission also includes a certificate indicating that he is a member of The World 
Association of Beauty Culture (WABC) of Flushing, New York. 
In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of the membership bylaws or the official admission 
requirements for the WABC, ACD, or ACA. There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in 
these associations 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. 
The petitioner submitted an article that he allegedly published in Chinese Opera entitled "Facial Makeup 
Represent Different Characters." The record, however, includes no evidence of the field's reaction to this 
article, nor any indication that it is widely viewed as significantly influential. Furthermore, there is no evidence 
showing that the publication featuring this article had substantial national or international readership. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted various photographs of what are alleged to be his stage performances. This 
particular criterion, however, 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 
performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion. 
Even if we were to address the petitioner's performances under this criterion, he has not demonstrated that his 
performances have consistently been the centerpiece of major productions at prestigious venues. Such a 
standard must be set for the petitioner to establish that he enjoys sustained acclaim near the top of his field. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the pevfarming arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion calls for commercial success in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting what are 
alleged to be photographs of one's perfoimances cannot meet the plain wording of the regulation. The record 
includes no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing 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. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate he meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 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, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.