dismissed EB-1A Case: Vegetable Carving

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
data deleted U, 
vent dearly unwarraoted a3m mssion dDerd &v= 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: I 
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. 
'4 5 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be summarily 
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. 
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. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
There is no doubt that my work has got lots of recognized reputation in the field [sic]. I am looking 
forward to spread my profession in U.S. to benefit the people here. Your reconsideration is so 
important to me. I hopefully request my petition can be considered again. Thank you very much for 
your time and consideration. 
The appellate submission was unaccompanied by arguments or evidence addressing the pertinent regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner indicated that he was not submitting a separate brief or 
evidence. 
As stated in 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional 
evidence. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
.aentifvhg dam deleted to U. S. Citizenship 
prevent dcsrly unwarradsd and Immigration 
{nvasb dw 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: 0 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 05 185 50328 Date: & 1 9 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. 9 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. 
vobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. 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: 
(I) 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. 
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 June 13, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
vegetable carver. 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 April 1999. Given the length of time 
between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than six 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. 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an undated Certificate of Appreciation from the Department of Education Development 
of Malaysia. 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 translation accompanying the petitioner's 
certificate was not certified as required by the regulation. Further, there is no evidence showing that this award 
reflects national or international recognition rather than institutional recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate indicating that he received a "National Arts Award" for "Most - 
Promising Artist" (January 10, 1998). The certificate bears ,a computerized signature from " 
Chairman of Committee," but the name of the cornrnittee'and the issuing entity have not k en identified.' 
There is no documentation from the awarding entity or the print media to establish that this award is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award. Further, we note that this award refers to the petitioner as a 
"Promising Artist." This visa classification, however, is reserved for those already at the top of their field, not 
for those who are expected eventually to reach that level. 
The petitioner's initial submission also included an award certificate from "Bank Negara Malaysia" (July 16, 
1998). This award reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate indicating that he received a "Best Art Design Award" (1994). The 
certificate bears a computerized signature from 'hairman of Committee," but the name of the 
committee and the issuing entity have not been identified. There is no documentation from the awarding 
entity or the print media to establish that this award is a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
Further, the computerized signature suggests multiple recipients. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a "Certificate of Achievement . . . 
1997 National Arts Design Award." The organization that issued this award, however, has not been identified. 
There is no documentation from the awarding entity or the print media to establish that this award is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for culinary excellence. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate from the "Department of Arts and Culture7' stating that he was 
selected as the "Most valuable youth artist of the year" (June 1998). A "youth award offers no meaningful 
comparison between the petitioner and the most experienced and practiced individuals in the culinary field. 
There is no indication that the petitioner faced competition from throughout his entire field, rather than only 
' A computerized signature suggests multiple recipients. Awards regularly bestowed upon a large number of recipients 
are of minimal evidentiary weight. 
Page 4 
his approximate age group within that field. Such an award is not an indication that an individual has reached 
the "very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate indicating that he received an "Outstanding Arts Award from the 
alaysian Association of the Arts" (1996). The certificate bears a computerized signature from '- 
& , Executive Chairman" suggesting multiple recipients. There is no evidence showing that this award reflects 
national or international recognition rather than organizational recognition. 
Simply receiving an award certificate with the word "national" in the title does not satisfy this very restrictive 
criterion. We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate evidence to 
establish that his award certificates enjoy significant national stature. In this case, the record includes no such 
documentation. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has received any awards 
subsequent to 1998. The absence of such awards indicates that the petitioner has not sustained whatever level 
of acclaim he may have earned in Malaysia during the 1990's. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
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 
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. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted what is alleged to be evidence of 
her membership in the Organization for Academy Art (OAA). The record, however, includes no evidence of 
the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for this organization. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that admission to membership in the OAA required outstanding achievement or that the 
petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted sixteen images of what are alleged to be his culinary creations. Without further 
evidence, it cannot be determined that the petitioner's creations are among those pictured. Nevertheless, the 
plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to provide evidence demonstrating that his work has 
been "displayed" at culinary "exhibitions or showcases." In this case, the specific names and locations of the 
exhibitions and showcases that featured the petitioner's work have not been identified. In fact, there is no 
contemporaneous evidence (such as an event program or brochure) demonstrating the petitioner's 
involvement at specific culinary exhibitions or showcases in the U.S. or Malaysia. 
It must be stressed that a vegetable carver does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his or her 
work to be displayed. We find no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's creations have regularly been 
displayed at exclusive national venues. Nor is there any indication that the petitioner's dishes have been 
featured along side those of culinary artists who enjoy national or international reputations. Furthermore, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated his regular participation in shows or exhibitions at exclusive venues devoted 
largely to the display of his culinary creations alone. 
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 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)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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, lnc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 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. 3 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.