dismissed EB-1A Case: Chinese Medical Acupuncture

US. Depadmerat of Hemeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., I3m. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
US. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PLE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ?? -- 1 r'g J dvl 
7 1 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an AABn of Extrmdinasy Ability Pursuant to Section 
283(b)(B)(A) of the gration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)( 1)(A) 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. AH1 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
%>obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based i grant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Semice 
Center, md is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
itioner seeks classification as an employment-based ant pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the 
ation and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153 ), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not estab8ished that he qudifies 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 i grants who are aliens 
descbkd in any ofthe following subparagraphs (A) though (C): 
(A) Miens 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 01 irnternationd acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field though extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the U~Sted S.tates to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entxy to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the tern "extsaosdinary ability9' 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.H.W. 
9 20$.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.W. $ 204.5@)(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 tog Level, 
This petition, filed on October 12, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Chinese Medical Acupuncturist." 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 1999. Given the 
length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is 
reasonable to expect the petitioner 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.W. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim though evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Baning the alien's receipt of suck: an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at Beast thee 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 peaaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the fieEd of  endeavor^ 
The petitioner submitted a certificate (dated August 1997) stating: "Ten Techniques of Massage,' composed 
by [the petitioner] won the Second Prize for the Forth [sic] 'National Outstanding Science Publication 
Award."' 
There is no evidence of publicity s-ennounding the petitioner's receipt of this prize or evidence showing that it 
enjoys a significant Bevel of recognition. In this case, the recod contains no supporting documentation from 
the awarding entity or print media to establish that the petitioner's prize is a nationally recognized prize for 
scientific excellence. Furthermore, pwsuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 B03.2@)(3), any document containing foreign 
language submitted to Citizenship and ]inmigation Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full Engsish 
language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the transrator'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. 
Er addition to the above deficiencies, the record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any 
significant paizes subsequent to 1999. The absence of such prizes indicates that the petitioner has not 
sustained whatever acclaim he may Rave emed in China during the 1990's. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the$eldfor which cZass@cation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
h 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. h addition, it is clear fi-om the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in am association 
that evaluates its membership applicatiolns at the local os 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. 
The petitioner submits what are alleged to be his membership certificates for the China Acupnncture 
Association (issued in October 1993) and the Chinese Clinical Medicine Association (issued on December 6, 
1998). The record7 however, does not include the membership bylaws or official admission requirements for 
these associatioars. There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in these organizations 
required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or iiaaemational experts in 
cansideration of his admission to membership. 
The yetitioner also submitted thee qualifications certificates (i.e., "Special Technology Position Qualification 
Certificate" issued on June 30, 1993 indicating that the petitioner is a "Doctor" of "Chinese and Western 
Medical Massage"). We cannor conclude, however, that such certifications, which represent standad entry 
requirements for a partickalzu medical specialty or profession, we adequate to demonstrate "outstanding 
achievement9' in the medical field. 
Evidence ofthe alien's authorshe ofscholarly articles in thefield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted what he alleges is evidence of his authorship of an micle entitled 'What does It 
Mean to do Acupuncture" in The Youthfil Readers. The translation accolngaslying this article was not 
certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Furthemore, there is 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 supporting evidence (such as citations) showing that the petitioner's 
a~icle is viewed throughout his field as significantly influential. 
As noted previously, the petitioner submitted a certificate stating that his article "'Ten Techniques of 
Massage9 . . . won the Second Prize for the Forth [sic] TJationaI Outstanding Science Publication Awxci."' 
Aside from this certificate, however, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner actually publislmed this 
aflic1e.l Nor is there any evidence of the article's national distribution or significant influence. 
Evidence that the alien has commsmded a high salary or other sigzijicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a one-sentence "Notarial [sic] Certificate" stating that he was employed as "'the 
Assistant Factory Director and Dress Designing [sic] in Yanbian International Trading Building Co., Etd. 
State Joint Clothing Factory from Oct. 1988 to Dee. 1995." We note that this certificate was issued by ki 
Chunguo, a Notary in the JJilin Province, rather than by an official of the factory.' 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that b~s employment at the factoy satisfies this criterion. The record, however, 
contains no evidence to support t?xs conclusion. The plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others En the field." In this instance, the petitioner has failed 
to submit evidence of his earnings at the factory. There is no evidence showing that hs compensation was 
signiGcantly high in re-elation to others in his field. Fdennore, subseqinent to his arrival in the United States in 
1999, there is no indication that the petitioner ems a level of compensation that places him at the top of his field. 
I Interestingly, the petitioner has not provided a copy of the article or the publication in which it appeared. 
2 The petitioner does not adequately explain how employment as an Assistant Factory Director re:ates to acupuncture. 
According to the documentation submitted by the petitioner, he was working at this factory during the sane period in 
which he was admitted to membership in the China Acupuncture Association (October 1993) and received a "Special 
Technology Position Qualification Certiscate" as a "Doctor" specializing in "Chinese and Western Medical Massage" 
(June 30, 1993). 
Page 5 
It should be noted that the record contains a copy of the petitioner's passport, issued in Jilin by the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs of the People's Republnc of China on Febmay 17, 1998. Under "Profession," the passport 
identifies the petitioner as a "Manager," despite the petitioner's claim that he is nationally recognized as a 
Chinese medical acupuncturist. The petitioner has not resolved this discrepancy. Et 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 Hs, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 59 1-92 (B& 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. 
h this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least thee of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or btem?arionraP acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himelf to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained naioraal or international acclaim or to be with 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 dhers in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I$(A) of the kt md the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the segulation 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 inclnde 
Better(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged co tments 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 September 22, 2004 letter accompanying the petition does not adequately detail how the 
petitioner intends to continue his work in ttlae United States. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the techical requirements of the Iaw may be denied by 
the A40 even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds fm denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, lnc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d $83 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dsr v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the A40 reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
T'le 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 buxden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 298 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Mere, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The apped is dismissed.