dismissed EB-1A Case: Sculpture

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw-ted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 1 1 2006 
LIN05 220 53115 
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. 
9pRobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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. 9 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 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. 
8 204.5(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. 9 204.5(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 21, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a sculptor. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. According 
to his Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner has been residing in the United States 
since September 1996. Given the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the 
petition's filing date (more than nine years), 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 in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 
Page 3 
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 awards for excellence in theJieId of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Prize" issued to him in October 1995 by the Shanghai City Second 
Light Industry Bureau stating that he won the "First Grade Prize of Shanghai City Sculpture Arts and Crafts." 
The petitioner also submitted a "Certificate of Prize" issued to him in March 1996 for his work at the Shanghai 
Jade Sculpture Factory. These awards reflect local recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
Further, the record includes no evidence that would demonstrate the number of awards given, the criteria for 
granting these awards, the level of expertise of those considered, and the number of individuals eligible to 
compete. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled "Artistic Imagination of Zhuangzi" of which he claims to be the 
author that was allegedly "printed and distributed" by the "Organization Committee for Symposium of 
Aesthetics." The English language translation accompanying this document was not certified as required by 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Without evidence of substantial national or international readership, 
we cannot conclude that this article appeared in "professional or major trade publications or other major media." 
Nor is there any evidence of the greater field's reaction to this article, or any indication that it is widely viewed 
as significantly influential. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted an "Agreement of Cooperation" dated April 18, 1995 reflecting compensation to be 
paid to him from May 1995 to April 1996. The record, however, includes no financial documentation (such 
as payroll records or income tax forms) showing that the petitioner actually earned the compensation 
specified in this agreement. The plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a 
high salary "in relation to others in the field." In this instance, the petitioner offers no basis for comparison 
showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Further, there is no 
evidence showing that, subsequent to the petitioner's arrival in the United States in 1996, he has earned a level of 
compensation that places him at the top of his field. 
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. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on November 18, 2005. The appellate submission was accompanied by 
supporting evidence (which has been addressed in this decision). On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to 
Page 4 
the AAO, however, the petitioner indicated that a brief and/or evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 
30 days. As of this date, more than five months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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. 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 includes 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. tj 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.