remanded EB-1A Case: Chinese Opera

U-S. Department of flameland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, 3C 20529 
,\q U. S. Citizenship 
@ and lmmigiiticn 
,E~U Services 
FILE: Office: NEBUSKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Lmigant Petst~on for Alien Worker as an Allen of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203@)(%)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Actct, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF 0F PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Thas is the dec~sion of the Admanistrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been ret~ned to 
the office that onginally dec~ded you case. Any further inquiry mst be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employrnent-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Sewice 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration; including a notice advising 
the petitioner of derogatory infomation. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-base$ immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(B)(A) of the 
Wmmkgatioan and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(B)(A), as an alien of extraordina~gi ability in the 
arts. The director did not contest that the petitioner had the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for ciassification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Rather, the director concluded that the petitioner 
was not seeking to continue working in his area of expertise. 
While we conclude that the director's basis of denial was incomect, the matter must be remanded to the director 
for further action based on derogatory infomation obtained by this office and inconsistencies in the file 
discussed below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made avaiiable . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in my of the following subparagraphs (A) though (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Abilitygi. -- 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 substantialiy benefit prospectiveBy the 
United States. 
The evidence purporting to demonstrate the petitioner's national acclaim mostly relates to his accomplishrxents 
as a Chinese Opera performer. On the petition, the petitioner indicated that he sought to work as an "Opera 
Actor, Ad Director." The nontechnical description of the job includes the following duties: "to perfionn, to 
create program, to direct rehearsals and to train students." A letter from WSD Culture and E~~tertainment 
(WSB) offers the petitioner a job as "Art Director, Instructor and Peking Opera Actor9' at a salary of $500 per 
week plus $200 for each performance. These terns are confirmed by a contract between the petitioner and 
WSD. On December 4, 2003, the director requested additional documentation, questioning whether the 
petitioner sought to continue working in his area of expertise. In response, the petitioner indicated that he would 
perform opera in addition to directing rehearsals and training young performers. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted "evidence clearly relating to the petitioner's 
accomplishments as an Art Director or Instmctor." The director then concluded: 
It is noted that nearly aali positions have secondary duties or responsibilities. However, as the 
petitioner and his proposed employer have clearly detailed the petitioner's art directior, and 
instmction duties, these camot be considered as merely secondary or minor responsibilities. 
Rather, they appear to be significant duties different from the petitioner's area of ex&aordinaq 
abilitygi, and which would take away from the petitioner's duties therein. 
We agree that an alien must demonstsate that he is coming to the United States to continue working in his area 
off expertise, that instruction is not the same as performing, and that the evidence of the petitioner's experience 
as an a~ director and instructor does not rise to the level of extraordinary ability. That said, we camot agree 
with the director's conclusion. WSD's job offer constitutes a single job offer that includes pesoming opera as 
a specified duty. The remaining duties, while problematic if they were the petitioner's only duties, are related to 
his claimed area of expertise. Thus, we find the job offer to be a credible means for the petitioner to continue in 
his area of claimed expertise. 
Nevertheless, the director's conclusion that the petitioner has established sustained national acclaim is 
questionable. As used in this section, the tern "extraordinary ability" means a Bevel 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. 
9 204.5(!1)(2). The specific requiremen1.s 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 CIS 
regulation at 8 C.E.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) as follows. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or intemra9ionally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation off 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 fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and aut11or of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an aaliied field of specialization for which classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contrii"oenriions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence ofthe alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the Geld; or 
6x3 Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classi6 the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability as a Chinese opera 
performer. The regulation at 8 C@.F.R. 9 204.5(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, quoted above, at Least 
thee of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to quala@ as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. Initially, the petitioner submitted: 
As evidence to meet 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(E), Chinese' honors and awards, isssaed between 
November 1993 and 200 W ; 
As evidence *LO meet 8 C.F.R. 5 20%.5(h)(3)(ii), a letter from the Vice Chairman of the National 
Opera Mists Association indicating that membership requires a provincial or national award 
and the petitioner's membership card reflecting admission on June 2, 1993; 
As evidence to meet 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iiii), 1996, 11997, md 1998 news clips in what 
appear to be local newspapers; 
As evidence to meet 8 C.F.R, 9 204.5(h)(3)(iv), appointment as a panel member for the Youth 
Peking Opera section at the I998 China National Opera and Dance Competition; 
As evidence to meet 8 C.F.W. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), a September 2003 Better from the Preparation 
Committee of the Fifth World Arts Educatioia Discussion Conference in Beijing advising that 
the petitioner's article, 
read md printed at the c 
Shanghai Children Peking Opera Troupe" at the 3rd International Arts Festival Competition and 
a certificate recognizing the petitioaaer for leading the China Youth Vocal Delegation at the 
Sydney International Arts Festival Competition; and 
As evidence to meet 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(ix), questionable letters from Walt Disney 
Entertainment, Brigham Youn University, and Ogden City Depament of Community 
Services (DCS). manager of the Entedainment Depament at Walt Disney 
Entertainment, who typed her nama asserts: "I hope this pay is the most high salary 
than we paid for our other entertainers." (Grammatjcal errors in original.) Linda Thoanas, 
Director off Ogden City DCS, asserts: "This is to let you how that we pay you for $250, a~d 
1 
The petitioner also submitted a 2002 award from the Tung Ching Chinese Center for the Arts, Inc. in New 
York, with no evidence that this constitutes a national award. 
Page 5 
each other performers for $120.'' (Grammatical errors in original.) We note that both leUters 
are so fraught with these types of grammatical ewors as to raise concern regarding their 
legitimacy. 
On December 4,2003, the director advised the petitioner of several concerns: that the record lacked evidence of 
the significance of ?he petitioner's prizes, that membership in the National Bpera Association of China requires 
only a provincial award, that the articles submitted appeared to have been published in local papers, that the 
petitioner had not established the significance of the competitions judged, that the petitioner had not established 
the reputation of the Children Peking Opera Troupe, and that the record lacked evidence that the petitioner had 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the Geld. 
In response, the petitioner submined a letter frorn~irector of the Data Depament of the China 
National Opera Association. iscusxs the prestige of the awards won by the petitioner and the 
competition judged by the petitioner in 1998. rther asserts that the China National Opera 
Association requires members to be "the top major national competition and provincial 
competition that they should be not only the national competition winner, but also provincial competitions top 
winner." The petitioner also submitted a January 2001 newspaper article in the People's Daib reporting the 
results of the list of 10 Ex&aordinaq Artists of China, includ&g the petitioner based in his 2000 award at the 
Shanghai international competition. Finally, the petitioner submined a letter from general manager 
for Li Fa Culture Diskibbation Station in Shengyang City asserting that the petitioner's compact disc sold 80,000 
"'pieces." 
Based on the questionable features in the letter from this office contacted her and faxed her a copy 
of Bile letter she allegedly wrote. responded in writing. While she acknowledged ?hzt the copied 
sigmature was hers she asserted that the letter is a "forgery and definitely was not written by me." (Emphasis in 
original.) provided a list of 14 anomalies h the letter, most notably the misspelling of her name 
below her sipamre and the use of poor English grammar. She also indicated that her dep 
"Entertaiment Depament," that her title on the alleged letter is incorrect, and that she does not end ietters with 
"warn regads." Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a ~eevaluation of 
the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter ofNo, 
19 3&N Dec. 582, 591 (BM 1988). Thus, the fact that we have verified this letter as fraudulent casts doubts 
on the remaining documents. Nevertheless, 8 C.F.R. 3 B 03.2($)(16)(i) requires that Citizenship and 
Immigration Semices (CIS) advise the petitioner of any derogatory infomation of which he is anaware and 
offer an oppoduniQ to rebut the infomation. As such, we will remand this matter to the director for the 
purpose of advising the petitioner of this derogatory infomation and providing an oppostuni?y to rebnt it. 
Moreover, we note that both the assertia~n that the National Opera Associatiofi requires at least a provincial 
award and the assertion that the association requires both a provincial and a nationa8 award conflict with the 
record. As stated above, the petitioner received membership in June 1993, while he received his first award 
several months later, in November 1993. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, 
absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matier of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Thus, the director should consider whether this inconsistency reduces the evidentiary 
value of the petitioner's membership. 
The director should also evaluate whether the petitioner's appearance on the list of honorees in the People ';a 
Daily constitutes published material about the petitioner himself. Further, the director should evaluate 
whether the record suggests that the petitioner's salary is significantly hi& even in comparison with the most 
experienced and acclaimed opera performers nationwide. Finally, the director should evaluate whether the 
petitioner's accomplishments, the most significant of which occurred more than three years psior to the date 
of filing, are indicative of sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. 
The matter is remanded for further action consistent with the above concerns. 
As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests soiely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1361. 
OlRDER: The director's decision 4s withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing, including a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory 
evidence and entry of a new decision, which, regardless of outcome, is to be certified to the 
Administrative Appeals Office for review.