dismissed EB-1A Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11971158 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 1, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a dentist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements through either receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a dentist who at the time of filing was the Director of the.__ _____ ___. 
I I Research Center atl O !University I I in China, as well as the Deputy 
Director of thel I Department in the university's school and hospital of stomatology. He states 
that he intends to continue his education in the United States, as well as "increase the communication 
between Chinese and American dental! I research" and "farther develop th~ I 
industry in the U.S." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his participation as a judge of the work of others and his 
authorship of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets six additional 
evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director 
regarding the criteria relating to the Petitioner's judging and authorship activities, but find that he does 
not meet the initial evidence requirements of this classification. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
As indicated in the plain language of this criterion, a petitioner must submit evidence to show that he 
has received a prize or award, that the award was granted to acknowledge his excellence in the field 
of endeavor, and that the award is nationally or internally recognized. Here, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence pertaining to the following awards: 
• Silver MedalistJ I East China~I ----~---- ...... l Debate Competition 
(2017), Representative Team of School of Stomatology, I ]umvers1ty, 
2 
• Second Prize,~I ------~II pebate Competition (2018), 
School and Hospi y,I I Omvers1ty, 
• Third Prize, 2017 Science and Technology Awards, School and Hospital of 
Stomatology, University 
• Third Prize 2018 Science and Technology Progress Awards,D Stomatological 
Hospital University 
• Copper Prize, The l~--------------~I Innovates the Achievement 
Exposition (2007) 
• Excellent Paper of Conference Award, 2007 Chinese ~------------~ Seminar 
Turning to the first element of this criterion, we note that the Petitioner was not an individual recirent 
of the first two awards listed. Articles in the record which were retrieved from the I web 
portal as well as what appears to be thd !website indicate that the Petitioner was the team leader 
for the university at the debate competitions, and photographs show him accepting the certificate along 
with the four other team members. However, neither of the debate competition certificates name him 
as a recipient. We therefore find that he did not receive these awards. 
Although the evidence relating to the science and technology awards also lists the recipients by 
institution name, the names of the individual research team members are also included, and therefore 
shows that those individuals were recognized by the awarding organization. In addition, the last two 
certificates specifically name the Petitioner as the only recipient. These awards can therefore be 
considered to have been received by him. 
As for the second element of this criterion, the evidence regarding the debate competitions indicates 
that the prizes were awarded based in large part upon debate skill rather than excellence in the field of 
dentistry. For instance, an article posted on the I I portal regarding the I t' 
competition describes the topics being debated, which involve the choice between two dental 
procedures, but in detailing the results provides comments about the debating skill and tactics of the 
teams, such as noting that one set of debaters "were agile, strong, and had strong thinking ability," 
while another debate was "full of witty words," and yet another participant sang a song for comedic 
effect. 
The evidence relating to the 20171 
0 
!Science and Technology Award and the 20180 
Science and Technology Award is sufficient to show that they were awarded for excellence in the 
field, as they are based upon contributions already made by the teams and individuals. However, the 
record does not include information regarding the criteria used in awarding the last two awards listed, 
or any other evidence which would support a finding that they were awarded based upon excellence 
in dentistry. We note that the term "excellent" used for the seminar award is not sufficient, by itself: 
to meet this element of the criterion. 
Finally, looking at the third element of this criterion, the record does not include evidence that the 
research grant awards, which are the only two awards meeting both of the first two elements, are 
nationally or internationally recognized. The notification for the 201 7 Science and 
Technology Awards was posted on the website of the issuing organization, the,__ _ _, Medical 
Association, and the internet search results submitted by the Petitioner do not show that recognition 
3 
of these awards went beyond the provincial level. Similarly, the evidence of information about the 
2018 I I Science and Technology Progress A wards posted on a web portal is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that these awards received national or international recognition in the field of dentistry. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the following associations: 
• Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA), Member of Fifth Special Committee for 
I 1(2015-18), Standing Member of Sixth Special Committee for.___ ___ ____.(2018-
21 
• Stomatolo ical Association I I, Standing Member of First Specialized Committee 
,....._ ____ ----., (2006-10), Vice Chairman of Second and Third Specialized Committees 
-----r--~ (2011-19), Standing Member of First Specialized Committee for I I 
Dentistry (2015-19), Executive Director of Fourth Council 
• Chinese Medical Association of Medical Information (CMAMI), Standing Member of Seventh 
Council (2015) 
• Chinese Medical Association (CMA), .... I __ _.I Branch, Member of Third Committee of 
~ty for Stomatology 
• L__J Medical Association .... I _ ____.I, Stomatology Branch, Standing Member of Fourth 
Committee 
Regarding the Petitioner's membership in the CSA, he asserts on appeal that standing members of the 
committee "must have recognized important contributions" and "are all experts with outs~ndingl 
expertise," and refers to a letter submitted in response to the Director's RFE. That letter, fro 
I I the President of thee=] and President of the Schol-'-'--'....._.......,,.. ......... .......,---.; atl I states that there 
are 53 standing members of the Special Committee for and that they must have 
"recognized important contributions in the field of ora ~----~" ~--_.also writes that this 
membership must be voted unanimously by all association members, and that all standing members 
of the committee are "renowned professional experts in the field of Chinese orall ~" 
However, we note thatl I does not specify what contributions the Petitioner made that were 
considered sufficiently important to justify his selection as a standing member of the committee, nor 
does the record include a copy of the CSA's official rules regalding rembership. An article from 
what appears to from the website of the school of stomatology a notes that the members of the 
committee conducted a secret ballot to elect standing members and officers of the committee, 
including bothl land the Petitioner, but does not shed light upon the criteria employed by the 
members in casting their votes. Therefore the evidence does not sufficiently establish that the 
Petitioner's status as a standing member of one of the CSA's 34 committees meets this criterion. 
I I's letter also addresses the Petitioner's status as Vice Chairman (and after the filing of this 
petition, Chairman) of the c=J's Specialized Committee fo~ L He writes that all 
4 
members of this committee are "excellent researchers," and that the Petitioner was elected as Chairman 
due to his "excellent performance and achievements." Although he notes that the Petitioner 
successfully performed his duties as Vice Chairman of the committee,! I again does not 
identify any outstanding achievements that led r his ar,pointment as Vice Chairman and Chairman. 
In addition, the evidence includes a copy of the articles of association. Although the articles 
specify that senior officers of the association must "have great influence in the business field of the 
association," they do not include any requirements for leadership of the committees. In addition, the 
articles state that individual members must be engaged in stomatology and relevant professions. This 
evidence does not show that the0 requires outstanding achievements of its members, or applies a 
higher standard of membership including outstanding achievements for leaders of its committees. 
The last of the Petitioner's memberships that he addresses on appeal is his status as a member in the 
CMA. Although we agree that, per the articles of association, the payment of membership dues is not 
a condition for acceptance into the CMA, the articles do not otherwise show that outstanding 
achievements are required. Notably, ordinary members must hold one of several positions in the 
medical field, have graduated from a medical institution of higher education, and obtained a practicing 
license. As these requirements are the minimum for entering into a medical profession, they do not 
constitute outstanding achievements. 
Although the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision regarding his membership in the 
remaining associations on appeal, we have reviewed the evidence regarding those memberships and 
agree with the Director. The Petitioner has not established that his level of membership in any of these 
associations requires outstanding achievements, and we conclude that he therefore does not meet this 
criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must show that material is about them, 
that it relates to their work in the field, and that it was published in one of the qualifying types of 
media. Here, the evidence submitted falls into several different categories. The first type to be 
considered is a screenshot of a video posted on I I which shows the Petitioner. The 
accompanying translation identifies the Petitioner and lists his credentials, and includes what would 
appear to be the first spoken sentence in the video in which he introduces himself However, although 
the video is described as an interview, a transcript of the video was not submitted, so the evidence 
does not indicate that the Petitioner was interviewed or, if he was interviewed, that the interview was 
about him and his work as a dentist. The evidence is therefore insufficient to show that this material 
is about the Petitioner and his work in the field of dentistry. In addition, while we acknowledge that 
the Petitioner submitted evidence regarding the popularity of1 I as a platform, he has not 
demonstrated that every video posted on the platform, regardless of the person or organization that 
posted it, should be considered to have been published in a major medium. · 
Another type of material submitted by the Petitioner is what appear to be advertisements. One example 
is a copy of an article published in a newspaper called Health News which lists his achievements and 
5 
credentials and then includes his office address, telephone number and hours. Another example, 
published on the I lweb portal, is a lengthy interview and case summary for one of the 
Petitioner's patients. At the end of this material, it is stated that the editor is "propaganda team of 
stomatological hospital," and the address and other contact information for the hospital is provided. 
However, marketing materials created for the purpose of promoting a petitioner's services are not 
generally considered to be published material about the petitioner. 1 
The record also includes two newspaper articles including the same photograph, which the Petitioner 
asserts were published inl I Daily and I I F:vening News. However, neither of these 
newspaper clippings include identification of the publication, nor do they include the date of 
publication as required. Further, the Petitioner is not identified in the first article, and both 
accompanying articles are about the visit of a French technical advisor, not the Petitioner and his work. 
One article which is about the Petitioner and his work was published in I !Railway Newspaper 
.__ __ ~_.I 1998. But the Petitioner did not provide circulation information for this newspaper, and 
did not otherwise claim or establish that it is one of the qualifying types of media. 
Upon review of all of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, including the material 
specifically mentioned above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For example, 
a petitioner may show that the original contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
Here, the Petitioner submitted evidence that he is named as an inventor on nine utility patents granted 
by the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration. In addition, he submitted certificates 
from several hospitals and medical device manufacturers regarding the production and use of devices 
based upon these patents. Specifically, certificates were initially submitted fronl I Union Hospital 
and the First Hospital of1 I stating that each of these institutions have used devices based on 
three of the Petitioner's patents. However, we note that all of these certificates use the exact same 
format, and all include nearly identical language despite coming from separate hospitals. Specifically, 
the last sentence of each certificate varies only slightly, suggesting that the language in the letters is 
not the authors' own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 
2006) (upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings 
based in part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of Justice, 489 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
6 
F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when 
an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
This is also the case with additional certificates submitted in response to the Director's RFE. For 
example, the last sentence of the certificates froml I andl I Hospital 
regarding the production and use of a physiotherapy instrument are identical. Because these 
certificates are identical in format and share identical or nearly identical language, it is reasonable to 
infer that the Petitioner is the common source of this evidence, thus significantly reducing their 
evidentiary value. 
In addition, even if we were to consider the content of these certificates as entirely valid, they do not 
establish that the Petitioner has made a major contribution to the field of den~ Although they 
indicate that adoption of these devices has takf n plaf e in hosprals belond L___J most of these 
hospitals are in the same province ofl I as including Medical University, First 
Hospital of I I and I I Municipal Hospital. In addition, the certificates from the 
manufacturers indicate that they have been produced in what appear to be limited numbers, including 
200 units of the physiotherapy instrument and 700 units of al I. Although the 
producers assert that that thd I has been "applied in hundreds of domestic hospitals 
and clinics" and that an ice and heat compress mask has "sold quite well in hospitals and clinics 
nationwide," the evidence is insufficient to show that the apparently low number of units produced 
supports these assertions. Further, the record does not include evidence to support that this level of 
adoption by some hospitals in China demonstrates wide implementation throughout the field or a 
remarkable impact. 
We also note that the certificates do not indicate that the introduction and use of these devices has 
resulted in a significant contribution to dental care or the field of dentistry. Several of the certificates 
state that the use of these devices has "benefitted a lot of patients" and "can save operation time and 
improve efficiency," and they generally indicate satisfaction with the devices. However, while some 
of the certificates describe the construction and operation of the devices in detail, none specifically 
indicate the scope of their impact upon patient care. 
Reference letters submitted by the Petitioner also discuss his patents and their contributions to the 
field. For instance] I of the I ~ University School of Dentistry (Japan) 
describes the construction and operation of a 1" ( described as al I on the 
patent certificate) which the Petitioner helped to invent, and states that "th~ I efficiency 
is improved and the injuries to the patient is reduced." As with the statements provided in the 
certificates] Is description does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that this 
device has been a contribution of major significance to the field. 
The Petitioner also focuses in his appeal brief on the contribution he made to a cooperative research 
project with Australian researchers on the effects of hyperbaric oxygen onO tissue. He refers to 
two reference letters in support of the major impact of this research. I I of the 
I !University Institute of Stomatology states that this research "has released many valuable 
academic papers," but mentions only one paper co-authored by the Petitioner. I l also 
mentions this project and states that its contribution "can be showed by the scientific fee of more than 
CYN 500,000." However, he does not explain the correlation between the amount of funding granted 
7 
for this research and the significance its outcome has had on the field of dentistry, and neither letter 
provides detail concerning the project's results and subsequent impact. 
Although the Petitioner has shown that he has made original contributions to his field through his 
inventions and research, the evidence submitted and analyzed above does not establish that he those 
contributions have been of major significance. Therefore, he does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In general, a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall hierarchy of an organization 
and through 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 for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
The evidence shows that the Petitioner has served as the Director of the ~------;=====1 
I I Research Centerl I ofO since 2013, as well as Deputy Director ofthd~--~ 
Department in the School and Hospital of Stomatology. On appeal, the Petitioner hiThlights the letter 
froml l who is the President o-te=J's School of Stomatology.l j states that in the 
two roles held by the Petitioner, he "lead[ s] the clinical work and research of two departments." He 
also states that the Petitioner is "a well-known ex ert in in China" and among "China's 
first batch of doctors and researchers of ." In addition,! I writes that the 
Petitioner was appointed as the Director of the Teaching and Research Office, in 
which role he leads "the various levels of~-----~ and students' cultivation work" in the 
School of Stomatology. 
Although I I's letter provides little detail regarding the Petitioner's duties, it sufficiently 
indicates that he serves in a leading role for the! I as well as thel !Department. However, 
as noted by the Director in his decision, this reference letter and others in the record do not indicate 
where his position fits into the overall hierarchy ate=] or even within the School of Stomatology 
and Affiliated Stomatological Hospital. Evidence which appears to be from the I I website 
indicates that the hospital has 14 clinical departments and 7 administrative departments, and the 
evidence concerning the Petitioner's leadership of one or two of those departments is not sufficient 
to establish that it is leading or critical for the entire hospital. Further, the record does not include 
evidence which establishes thatl I or thel !Department by themselves have distinguished 
reputations. 
The website evidence also verifies statements in several of the reference letters that the Petitioner's 
employing hospital is the only specialized stomatological hospital i~ I province. Another page 
from the website states that the hospital's "research conditions have been improved," and that it "ranks 
high in Periodontology and I L" but it does not include a reference or further 
information about the ranking to support this latter statement. This evidence does not therefore 
establish that I l's School of Stomatology and Affiliated Stomatological Hospital have a 
distinguished reputation amongst similar hospitals in China or in the dentistry field overall. 
Per the above, we conclude that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
8 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted tax documents for the years 2016 through 2018 
that show that he earned "income from salary and wages" of RMB 449,706 and RMB 616,628 in the 
first two years, respectively, and that his monthly "normal salary and wages" in 2018 totaled RMB 
542,606. In addition, he earned bonuses of RMB 11,000 in 2016 and RMB 108,000 in 2017 and 2018. 
For purposes of comparison to the salary of others in his field, the Petitioner submitted a salary survey 
from the website www.kanzhun.com. This material indicates that the position surveyed is dentist, that 
it the figures are based upon "124 items of salary," and that the average salary of RMB 5949 is 
expressed in pre-tax yuan per month. However, average salary information for those performing work 
in a related but distinct occupation with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for 
comparison. Rather, the petitioner must submit documentary evidence of the earnings of those in 
his/her occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA 
Tour golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Here, although he 
works in the field of dentistry, the Petitioner's position as a department head withc=Js dentistry 
school and hospital is not comparable to that of a dentist. The partial list of positions, locations and 
salaries included with the submitted salary survey evidence verifies that the salaries included in the 
survey are dentists, and there is no indication that these positions share the same duties or level of 
responsibility as the Petitioner's position. 
In addition, based upon the partial list referenced above, these positions are located throughout China, 
and therefore do ndt provi
1
e an accurate basis for comparison to the Petitioner's salary, which is based 
upon conditions i The evidence includes a note to this effect, stating that "[S]alary level is 
affected by many factors, such as region, working years, and etc. For reference only." 
Because the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that his salary is high in relation to 
comparable positions within his geographical area, we conclude that he does not meet this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level 
do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a 
9 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that he 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10