dismissed EB-1A Case: Endodontics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
plJl3LK COPY 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE : EAC 03 200 52242 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: %P 0 p 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
pbert P. ~ieminn, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 200 52242 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 25, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
physician specializing in research and clinical studies in Endodontics. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
EAC 03 200 52242 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his receipt of the following: 
1) "The Best Doctor of 1991" award for "Excellence in Clinical Performance" from the Veterans 
Affairs Commission, ~xecutiv-R.O.C. 
2) "Certificate of Achievement" from the "ACADEMY OF ENDODNOTOLOGY [sic] R.O.C." for 
completing "an active member application" and demonstrating "proficiency in the theory and 
practice of Endodontics" (1994) 
3) Citation from the Taiwan Dental Association for ten years of distinguished social service (1994) 
4) "The Best Doctor of Year 1996" award from the Taichung City Health Bureau 
5) Letter of Thanks from the Tainan Dental Association (1998) 
6) "Service medal of 3rd grade" for achievement and ten years of continuous service at the Taichung 
Veterans General Hospital (2000) 
7) "The Best Doctor of Year 2001" award for "Excellence in Clinical Instruction" from the Veterans 
Affairs Commission, ~xecutiv~.~.~. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 4, 2003 letter from the Veterans Affairs Commission, Executive 
R.O.C., which discusses its Best Doctor of the Year award. The letter states: "Nominees of this award are 
generated through commendations of executives of each department. Then the Executive Committee of 
Medical Education in each hospital elects ten members to form an electing committee for evaluating 
nominees and determining awardees." According to this information, it is apparent that items 1 and 7 above 
reflect departmental or institutional recognition rather than national recognition. 
In regard to item 2, there is no evidence showing that this certificate is a nationally recognized award for 
excellence, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's completion of basic certification 
requirements or training. 
In regard to item 3, there is no evidence showing that this citation constitutes a top honor for excellence in his 
field, rather than simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's "ten years of distinguished social service." 
The plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to show that his citation is nationally recognized. 
The record, however, includes no such evidence. 
In regard to items 4, 5, and 6, it is apparent that these awards are local, regional, or institutional in scope 
rather than national in scope. 
Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to establish that the awards presented 
under this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. In this case, the petitioner has not shown 
that his awards were widely recognized beyond the organization that presented them. 
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 orfields. 
EAC 03 200 52242 
Page 4 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. 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 submitted evidence of his membership in the Association for Dental Sciences, Taichung Dental 
Association, Academy of Endodontology, American Association of Endodontists, and the Asia-Pacific 
Endodontic Confederation. The record, however, does not include the membership bylaws or official 
admission requirements for these organizations. There is no indication that admission to membership in these 
organizations required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or 
international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Published materials 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. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that 
most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted evidence of three Taiwanese newspaper articles, one of which appeared in the 
Liberty Times. None of articles were accompanied by proper English language translations. Pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), however, any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The three articles submitted by the petitioner do not meet these 
requirements. Without a complete translation of the articles, we cannot conclude that the petitioner was the 
primary subject of the material or that he was featured because of his significant achievements. Furthennore, 
the petitioner has not submitted quantitative data regarding the volume of distribution of the newspapers. 
Without evidence of their substantial national readership, we cannot conclude that they qualify as "major media." 
1 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
EAC 03 200 52242 
Page 5 
Finally, the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not identify "the title, date, and author of the material" as 
required by this criterion. In conclusion, the documentation provided by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that he 
has been the subject of sustained major media attention. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his research projects, including six research reports that he prepared 
from 1991 through 1996. The record, however, contains no evidence showing that any of the petitioner's 
research findings are viewed throughout his field as a contribution of major significance. 
The petitioner submitted two letters of support from professors who chair the dentistry departments at 
veterans hospitals where he has worked. These letters indicate that the petitioner has performed admirably 
throughout his career and published his research, but they offer no information regarding how the petitioner's 
work has significantly impacted the dentistry or endodontics fields. The petitioner's authorship of published 
papers may demonstrate that his research efforts yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent 
that any article, in order to be accepted in for publication, must offer new and useful information to the pool 
of knowledge. It does not follow that every individual whose scholarly research is accepted for publication 
has made a major contribution to his field. We will further address the petitioner's published works under a 
separate criterion. 
With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals from hospitals where the petitioner has worked, 
the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand 
evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim outside of his affiliated institutions. If the 
petitioner's reputation is limited to the hospitals where he has worked, then he has not achieved national or 
international acclaim regardless of the expertise of his witnesses. An individual with sustained national or 
international acclaim should be able to provide ample unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. Without 
extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential or highly 
acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that his work rises to the level of a contribution of 
major significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of papers published in journals such as Clinical Dentistry 
and Journal of Dental Science. We do not find, however, that publication of scholarly papers is presumptive 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; we must also consider the greater field's reaction to 
those papers. When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had, the very act of 
publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. If a given article in a 
prestigious journal (such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.) attracts the 
attention of other researchers, those researchers will cite the source article in their own published work, in 
much the same way that the petitioner himself has cited sources in his own articles. Numerous independent 
citations would provide firm evidence that other researchers have been influenced by the petitioner's work 
and are familiar with it. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that 
EAC 03 200 52242 
Page 6 
that work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater field, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's 
work is not nationally or internationally acclaimed. In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's published papers are widely cited or that those papers are acclaimed outside of his circle of 
acquaintances. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's conference presentations satisfy this criterion. This particular 
criterion is more appropriate for the visual arts (such as sculpting and painting) rather than scientific or 
medical research. In the fields of science and medicine, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act 
of presenting one's work at a conference. 
In regard to the petitioner's conference presentations, we note that the record contains no documentation 
demonstrating that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that the invitation to 
present at conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top researchers. 
Participation in scientific conferences and symposia of the petitioner's kind is routine and expected in the 
medical research community. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposiums to 
present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are 
promoted and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government 
agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in his 
field at the national or international level. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
conference presentations commanded an unusual level of attention in comparison to those of other conference 
participants or that he has served as a keynote speaker at a national or international scientific conference. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001, his gross 
earnings were $4,415,287 TWD (Taiwan New Dollars). The petitioner also submitted average monthly salary 
statistics for "Medical & Health Services" professionals in Taiwan. 
The petitioner's reliance on "average" salary statistics for "Medical & Health Services" professionals as an 
appropriate basis for comparison is flawed for two reasons. First, the petitioner must submit evidence 
showing that his salary is significantly high in relation to that of other endodontists (the petitioner's evidence 
includes no listing of the specific occupations under the broad category of "Medical & Health Services" 
professionals). Second, the petitioner's evidence must demonstrate that his salary places him at the very top 
of his field rather than above average in his field. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
EAC 03 200 52242 
Page 7 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.