dismissed EB-1A Case: Alternative Medicine

identifYing data deleted to 
prev~nt clearly unwarranted 
inVasion of personal privaC} 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE JAN 2 3 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § lI53(b)(I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
ot:-73~·· r---
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. The AAO will also enter a separate administrative finding of willful material 
misrepresentation. 
I. PROCEDURE AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" as an "alternative medicine 
specialist," pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A). 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act; and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); see also H.R. 723 IOlst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990). The implementing 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under 
at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted only his personal statement, offering no additional documentary 
evidence. On October 11, 2011, this office advised the petitioner of its intent to find material 
misrepresentations and afforded the petitioner 15 days to respond. As of this date, more than three 
months later, the AAO has received no response. 
II. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL 
A. Misrepresentation 
By submitting articles authored by another researcher as his own and by submitting a letter from a 
purported expert who has never worked where she claimed, the petitioner has willfully misrepresented 
material facts. 
B. Eligibility under Section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Act 
The AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the classification sought. 
Page 3 
III. LAW 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
IV. MISREPRESENTATION 
A. Legal Authority 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully 
misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has 
procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other 
benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible. 
As outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that 
the alien willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 
288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished 
from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See 
Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 425 (BIA 1998); Matter of Healy and Goodchild, l7 I&N Dec. 
22, 28 (BIA 1979). To be considered material, the misrepresentation must be one which "tends to 
shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which might well have 
resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 536, 537 (BIA 
1980). 
Page 4 
Accordingly, for an immigration officer to find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa 
petition proceedings, he or she must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false 
representation to an authorized official of the United States government; 2) that the 
misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that the fact misrepresented was material. See 
Matter of M-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter ~f L-L-, 9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 1961); 
Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
B. Analysis 
Beyond upholding the director's decision to deny the petition, the AAO is making a formal finding 
of willful misrepresentation of a material fact that should be considered in any future proceeding 
where the petitioner's admissibility is an issue.l On October 11, 2011, in accordance with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), this office issued a notice advising the petitioner of 
derogatory information indicating that he submitted a false reference letter and two articles that were 
not authored by the petitioner, which he claimed as his own. The petitioner signed the Form 1-140, 
thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are 
all true and correct." In addition to certifying under the penalty of perjury that the evidence 
supporting the petition was true and correct, the petitioner's initial submission to USCIS included a 
letter signed by him summarizing his purported accomplishments. The petitioner's letter 
specifically states: 
The following supporting evidence for your review may be self-evident that I am 
eligible for classification of EB I: ... 
B. Peer Expert Opinion on my extraordinary 
achievements and ability in life science ... 
O. Scientific Publications: _ et al: Reduced Release of Nitric Oxide 
to Shear Stress ... (Journal of Neurophysiology.) ... 
P. Scientific Publications_ et al: Tempol, Novel Stable Nitric Oxide, 
Reduces Brain Damage ... (Journal of Neurotrama). 
Pursuant to the foregoing, I believe I may have satisfied the Service's criteria #2, #4, 
#5, #6, #8, among the criteria 1 through 10. 
I It is important to note that while it may present the opportunity to enter an administrative finding of willful 
material misrepresentation, the immigrant visa petition is not the appropriate forum for finding an alien 
inadmissible. See Matter of 0, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959). Instead, the alien may be found inadmissible at 
a later date when he or she subsequently applies for admission into the United States or applies for adjustment 
of status to that of a permanent resident. See sections 212(a) and 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. §§ II 82(a) and 
1255(a). 
-Page 5 
As the derogatory findings relate to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi). 
they are material to this proceeding. The AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
The initial evide~port of the petition includes evidence you 
characterize as, . ___ Peer Expert Opinion on my extraordinary 
achievements and ability in life science," "Scientific Publications: Dong Sun et al: 
Reduced Release of Nitric Oxide to Shear Stress ... (Journal of Neurophysiology.)," 
and "Scientific Publications: _ et al: Tempol, Novel Stable Nitric Oxide, 
Reduces Brain Damage ... (Journal of Neurotrama)." 
In the letter purported to be from she asserts to be employed as an Assistant 
Research Professor for the University of Florida "School of Medicine" in Gainesville, Florida. The 
letter is not on the University of Florida letterhead even though the author is using her position to 
lend credibility to the letter's content. Within her supporting letter,_ also claims to have 
authored "more than 20 papers, treatises published in peer-reviewed, nationally lC"'U1iJl> proresslon 
journals." A search of Google Scholar reveals several works under the name, 
However, the results are related to individuals with a different middle name than_ (Qi). 
As a result, the AAO is not able to verify any scholarly works by a actually exist. 
After consulting with the University of Florida, Human Resource Services, the AAO confirms that 
has never worked for the university. The university also noted that the department 
in which the letter alleges _ works does not bear the name "School of Medicine" as the 
proper title is "College of Medicine." 
Based on the above, it has been determined that the reference letter purportedly from _ 
_ contains false information regarding her employment and publication record. 
Additionally, the AAO's notice of derogatory information stated: 
You submit an article titled Reduced Release of Nitric Oxide to Shear Stress in 
Mesenteric Arteries (~f' Aged Rats in which you assert that you are the first-author. 
The version submitted to USCIS by you contains only an abstract of the actual article 
and consequently the article is devoid of any citations. A Google Scholar search for 
this title reveals the same article you provide as evidence. This search also revealed 
the article's first-author bears the same name as you, _ and that The 
American Journal of Physiology - Heart and Circulatory Physiology published the 
article on J 29, 2004. However, the article also contains a footnote citation 
next to name indicating that at the time the article was published he 
worked in the Department of Physiology, New York Medical College in Valhalla, 
New York.2 A review of the record lacks any employment on your part within the 
United States prior to your entry into the country in October 2006. The Form G-
325A, Biographic Information (G-325) signed and submitted by you with the initial 
2 See hup:l/aj pheart .physiology .orglcontentJ286/61H2249 .short. 
-Page 6 
filing reflects that you resided in China from the time of your birth until October 
2006. This article appears to relate to an individual who bears the same name, but 
who is not you. 
You also submit a second article titled Tempol, Novel Stable Nitric Oxide, Reduces 
Brain Damage and Free Radical Production, after Acute Subdural Hematoma in the 
Rat in which you assert that you are a second-author. The version submitted to 
USCIS by you contains only an abstract of the actual article and consequently the 
article is devoid of any citations. A Google Scholar search for this title reveals the 
same article you provide as evidence. This search also revealed one of the article's 
second-authors bears the same name as you, _, and that the Journal of 
Neurotrauma published the article on November 4, 2003. However, the article also 
contains a footnote citation next to __ name indicating that at the time the 
article was published he worked in the Division of Neurosurgery for Virginia 
Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia3 As previously stated, a review of 
the record lacks any employment on your part within the United States prior to your 
entry into the country in October 2006. The G-325 signed and submitted by you with 
the initial filing reflects that you resided in China from the time of your birth until 
October 2006. This article appears to relate to an individual who bears the same 
name, but who is not you. 
Based on the above, it has been determined that the petitioner falsely represented the articles titled 
Reduced Release of Nitric Oxide to Shear Stress in Mesenteric Arteries of Aged Rats and Tempol, 
Novel Stable Nitric Oxide, Reduces Brain Damage and Free Radical Production, after Acute 
Subdural Hematoma in the Rat as his own work. 
By the petitioner submitting a reference letter contammg false information about the author's 
credentials and by falsely representing the scholarly work of others as his own, it appears the 
petitioner has sought to obtain a visa by willful misrepresentation of a material fact. With regard to 
this derogatory information, 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 a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the 
remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. [d. at 591. Because the petitioner 
submitted false documents misrepresenting his achievements, the AAO cannot accord any of the 
petitioner's other claims any weight. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 c'F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i), the petitioner was afforded IS days (plus 3 
days for mailing) to submit evidence to overcome the derogatory information cited above. The 
1 See http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/l 0.1 089/089771503765172291. 
pelltloner failed to provide a response to the notice advising the petitioner of the derogatory 
information outlined above. 
The petitioner offers no evidence to overcome the AAO's findings that the reference letter from 
•• iII •••• contains false information and that the petitioner falsely represented the above 
referenced articles as his own work. 
In this case, the record shows that the petitioner submitted false documents, a finding that the 
petitioner has failed to overcome despite being advised of the derogatory information in the AAO's 
October 11, 2011 notice. An immigration officer will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits 
evidence that contains false information. See Section 204(b) of the Act. In general, a few errors or 
minor discrepancies are not reason to question the credibility of an alien or an employer seeking 
immigration benefits. See Spencer Enterprises Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir., 
2003)(upholding the AAO's finding that evidence in that matter was not credible). However, if a 
petition includes serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner fails to resolve those errors and 
discrepancies after an officer provides an opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies 
will lead USCIS to conclude that the facts stated in the petition are not true. See Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. at 591. 
First, the petitioner submitted a reference letter containing false information and two scholarly 
articles he falsel y represented as his own. A misrepresentation can be made to a government official 
in an oral interview, on the face of a written application or petition, or by submitting evidence 
containing false information. INS Genco Op. No. 91-39,1991 (April 30, 1991). Here, 
the petitioner's submission of the preceding documents in support of the Form 1-140 petition 
constitutes a false representation to a government official. 
Second, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully made the misrepresentation. The petitioner 
signed the Form 1-140 petition, certifying under penalty of perjury that the petition and the 
submitted evidence are all true and correct. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b); see 
also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). More specifically, the signature portion of the Form 1-140, at part 8, 
requires the petitioner to make the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under 
the laws of the United States of America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all 
true and correct." Further, the petitioner submitted a letter bearing his signature to USCIS 
purporting that all the submitted evidence was truthful and was directly related to him and his 
accomplishments. On the basis of the petitioner's signed letter and the signed 1-140 affirmation, 
made under penalty of perjury, the AAO finds that the petitioner willfully and knowingly made the 
misrepresentation. 
Third, the evidence is material to the petitioner's eligibility. To be considered material, a false 
statement must be shown to have been predictably capable of affecting the decision of the decision­
making body. Kungys v. U.S., 485 U.S. 759 (1988). In the context of a visa petition, a 
misrepresented fact is material if the misrepresentation cuts off a line of inquiry which is relevant to 
-Page 8 
the eligibility criteria and that inquiry might well have resulted in the denial of the visa petition. See 
Matter ofNg, 17 I&N Dec. at 537. 
As the false reference letter relates to the petitioner's eligibility for the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), it is material to this proceeding. Moreover, the two articles falsely 
represented to be the petitioner's work relates to the petitioner's eligibility for the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the misrepresentations 
were material to the petitioner's eligibility. 
By filing the instant petition, submitting a reference letter containing false information, and falsely 
representing two articles to be his own work, the petitioner has sought to procure a benefit provided 
under the Act through willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Because the petitioner has failed 
to provide competent independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, the 
AAO's finding that he submitted falsified documentation, the AAO affirms the finding that the 
petitioner has willfully misrepresented a material fact. This finding of willful material 
misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence 
to overcome the derogatory information discussed in above seriously compromises the credibility of 
the petitioner and the remaining documentation. As previously discussed, doubt cast on any aspect 
of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Nevertheless, the AAO will address the petitioner's failure to demonstrate his receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that 
must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
V. ELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 203(B)(1)(A) OF THE ACT 
A. Legal Authority 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 1015t Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. [d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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 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 author 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 allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the 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 field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.4 With respect to the criteria 
4 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those 
concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the 
corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" 
are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i). 
[d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will 
conduct a new anal ysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); 
Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. 
Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9
th 
Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's 
de novo authority). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria Analysis5 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must address. First, the plain 
regulatory language requires that the alien be the recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). 
The next requirement is that the evidence establishes that the prizes or the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized. The final requirement relates to the criteria required to receive the 
5 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page II 
award, which would indicate if the issuing entity bases their award selection on excellence in the 
petitioner's field of endeavor. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner submits a Certificate of Recognition from the dated 
March 2005 as evidence under this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
meet the requirements of this criterion. It is important to note that Wushu is a martial art sport and 
the certificate fails to indicate that it is recognition of accomplishments in the petitioner's claimed 
area of expertise. Nonetheless, the record contains no evidence to indicate the scope of the 
certificate indicating if this certificate enjoys national or international recognition. The petitioner 
also provides no evidence of the selection criteria for the certificate. This certificate will not serve 
to contribute to the petitioner meeting this criterion. 
Additionally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of 
"prizes" and "awards" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plura\. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory 
criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, 
the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation. 6 
Finally, as the petitioner submitted a reference letter contammg false information and falsely 
represented two articles to be his own work, the AAO finds that the authenticity of the preceding 
certificate is unreliable. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter o/Bo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
As it stands, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
6 See Maramjaya v. USCIS. Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Page 12 
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 fields. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must address. The first is that 
there are associations (in the plural) in the petitioner's field that consist of formal membership. The 
second requirement is that the petitioner is or was a member of these associations. The third element 
is that the associations require outstanding achievements (in the plural) as a condition of admittance. 
The final requirement is that admittance is judged, or adjudicated, by nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in their field who determine if the aforementioned outstanding achievements are 
sufficient for admission. 
The petitioner submits letters and certificates from 
letters from 
director det:errninled criterion. 
The first letter February IS, 1995. This 
letter atfirms the petitioner is a member of their association and that he is highly acclaimed in a local 
district. The second letter from is dated March 14, 
1995. This letter affirms the career accomplishments 
offering no information related to membership requirements or that admittance is penformed by 
recognized experts in the field. 
The petitioner submits a certificate with . however, 
the translation indicates the certificate is from the International Institute of Medical Qigong. This 
certificate merely states that the petitioner is seated as a council member. The certificate from the 
invites the petitioner to take the seat as an "Honorarian 
certificate from the China International Acupuncture 
Association invites the petJtJoner to be on a panel of the 2003 Annual National Reviewing and 
Licensing Award Committee for National Qualification Examination for Acupuncture Licenses. The 
petitioner failed to submit evidence of the membership requirements for any of the preceding 
assocmtJons. The AAO will not presume exclusive membership requirements from the general 
reputation of a given association, as the association's reputation may derive from its size, the number of 
symposiums it hosts or other factors independent of the exclusive nature of its membership. As the 
record does not contain the bylaws or other official documentation of the association's membership 
criteria, the petitioner cannot establish that his memberships are qualifying under this criterion. The 
petitioner also fails to provide evidence that nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field 
determine admittance to any of the preceding associations. 
It is also important to note that each of the above letters allegedly originate from different associations 
or organizations and each is certified with a seal, however, none of the translations contain the name of 
the association's official who is certifying the accuracy of the information within each letter. The 
Page 13 
translations only reflect that the document was officially sealed; apparently by the association or 
organization. 
Finally. as the petitioner submitted a letter containing false information and falsely represented two 
articles to be his own work. the AAO finds that the authenticity of the preceding memberships is 
unreliable. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner'S proof may lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Thus, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the requirements of this criterion. 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only selection as a judge, but also that the petitioner is able to produce 
evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation 
in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of others in the same field in 
which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the present petition. 
The petitioner submits a letter evidence under this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
evidence the petitioner submits reflecting his selection as a judge f~I· ••••••• 
in 2006 falls short of qualifying under this criterion. This criterion requires participation as a judge 
rather than mere selection, and the petitioner must provide evidence of this participation. More 
importantly, the regulation requires that the judging duties be either in the petitioner's field or in an 
allied field in which he seeks immigrant classification. The petitioner has not established that the 
martial arts (Wushu) is a field of endeavor that is allied with alternative medicine. 
Again, as the petitioner submitted a false reference letter and a falsely represented two articles to be his 
own work, the AAO finds that the authenticity of the preceding selection as a judge is unreliable. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 591. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien' s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
~its a reference letter 
___ and a letter from 
Page 14 
"Thrology" as evidence. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner's reference letter from 
evidentiary value. 
contains false information. Thus it has no 
The letter gives the petitioner many accolades for his experiences in 
several areas. However, does not provide any examples of how the petitioner has 
impacted his field of alternative medicine. To satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions 
of major significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his findings are novel and useful, 
but also that they have already made a demonstrable impact on his field as a whole. This letter falls 
short of demonstrating that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The letter from states the petitioner 
has cured patients drugs or . However, no examples to 
substantiate this claim and the petitioner failed to provide corroborating evidence of this assertion. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' 1 Comm'r 1972)). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian 
v. USC/S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).7 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
!d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
7 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Page 15 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States. 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The petitioner also failed to submit sufficient corroborating 
evidence, which could have bolstered the weight of the referenced letters. 
Finally, as the petitioner submitted a reference letter containing false information and falsely 
represented two articles to be his own work, the AAO finds that the authenticity of the preceding 
contributions is unreliable. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation 
of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien' s authorship of scholarly articles in the field. in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submits two articles related to this criterion. 
~ published in the Journal of Neurotrauma." 
~t the requirements of this criterion. 
As previously discussed, the AAO determined that the petitioner falsely represented both of these 
articles to be his own work. As the petitioner has not established that he is the author of these articles, 
they cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the 
role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should 
establish whether the role was critical. 
Page 16 
The petitioner provides a letter from the Shanghai Qigong Science Research Institute as evidence. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The sole 
form of evidence the petitioner relies upon is a letter that indicates the petitioner was invited to serve 
as the institute's director. The AAO will not infer the nature of the petitioner's role solely from the 
job title. The letter fails to describe the duties the petitioner performed for the organization. The 
letter falls short of specifying how the petitioner contributed to the organization in a way that is 
significant to the organization's outcome or what role he played in the organization's activities. 
The regulation also requires that the organization have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner 
offers no evidence related to the reputation of the Shanghai Qigong Science Research Institute. This 
evidence is insufficient to establish this organization has attained a distinguished reputation as 
required by the regulation. 
Additionally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of 
performing in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, which is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). As previously noted, the AAO can infer that the plural language in the 
regulatory criteria has meaning and that federal courts have upheld users' ability to interpret 
significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation8 In light of the above, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Finally, as the petitioner submitted a reference letter containing false information and falsely 
represented two articles to be his own work, the AAO finds that the authenticity of the preceding 
evidence relating to the petitioner's leading or critical role is unreliable. Doubt cast on any aspect of 
the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
C. Final Merits Determination Analysis 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is a final merits determination that considers all 
of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of 
at * \0 (upholding an regulatory requirement or 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of 
academic credentials). 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
A certificate of recognition, that garners no national or international recognition and that is not issued 
based on excellence in the field of endeavor, falls short of rising to the level of sustained acclaim on a 
national or on an international level. None of the associations in which the petitioner possesses a. 
membership, requires outstanding achievements of its members, nor do recognized experts in the field 
control admission to the associations. These memberships are not commensurate with national or 
international acclaim nor do these memberships demonstrate that the petitioner enjoys the status as one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. Selection as a judge 
can be a notable achievement; however, the field in which this selection occurred is not allied with the 
petitioner's. Selection as a judge in an unrelated field is not consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
Letters praising the petitioner's skills cannot form the cornerstone of an extraordinary ability claim. 
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
The petitioner failed to establish that the Shanghai Qigong Science Research Institute enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. Additionally, the record is lacking evidence which might indicate that the 
petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for this organization. While an invitation to serve as 
this institute's director could be an accomplishment, an invitation to merely serve in a position lacks the 
leading or critical characteristics to be considered representative of national or international acclaim. It 
is also not demonstrative that the petitioner enjoys the status as one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate, even if valid, does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies on a 
general certificate of recognition, memberships in associations with undocumented membership 
requirements, and his mere selection as a judge and selection as the director of an institute of 
undocumented reputation. The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals at the top of their respective fields, rather than for those who have an average level of 
achievement. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing 
the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or that he was among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
VI. CONCLUSION 
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 and 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. 
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 at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; 
see also Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting demonstrably false evidence, the petitioner has sought to 
procure a benefit provided under the Act through the willful misrepresentation of a material fact. This 
finding of material misrepresentation shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility 
is an issue. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the AAO enters a separate finding of willful misrepresentation 
of a material fact. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted false documents in an 
effort to mislead USCIS on elements material to his eligibility for a benefit 
sought under the immigration laws of the United States.