dismissed EB-1A Case: Peking Opera Performance

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 ? /! 'I* 
SRC 05 011 51830 
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. 
$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 (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. 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 qualifed 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. 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 October 15, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Peking Opera Performer." The petition was unaccompanied by supporting evidence. On November 19, 
2004, the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 
Page 3 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submits Certificates of Honor and accompanying English language translations indicating that he 
received the following: 
1. "First Grade Prize in 1994 National Traditional Opera Performance Competition" 
2. "Outstanding Prize in Wu Sheng series in 1996 National Drama Exchange Performance" 
3. "Second Grade Prize in Wu Sheng group in 1989 Shan Dong Province Peking Opera Performers 
Competition" 
4. "Outstanding Wu Sheng" award "in the Second Northeast Peking Opera TV Grand Prize 
Competition7' (1992) 
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. 
Items 3 and 4 are reflective of provincial or regional recognition, rather than national or international recognition. 
In regard to items 1 through 4, 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 prizes 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 1996. The absence of such awards indicates that the 
petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China during the 1990's. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in theJeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submits evidence of his alleged authorship of an article in Dazhonghua Yingyi entitled "History 
of Peking Opera." The record, however, contains no evidence showing that this article was actually published 
under the petitioner's name or evidence of its significant national or international distribution. Nor is there 
' For example, large-scale competitions typically issue event programs listing the order of events 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. 
supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's article is viewed throughout his field as significantly 
influential. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the peq4orming arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner submits three photographs of what are alleged to be his Peking Opera performances.2 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 SofSici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 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 his performances have consistently drawn 
larger audiences andlor higher box office grosses than most others in his field, at the national or international 
level. The record includes no such evidence. 
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 the 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, Znc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
2 While we cannot state with certainty that none of these photographs show the petitioner, we note that a recent 
photograph of the petitioner attached to his Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence of Adjust Status, 
bears little resemblance to any of the men in the Peking Opera photographs submitted on appeal. 
Page 5 
(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. 3 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.