dismissed EB-1A Case: Healthcare Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-S-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICIE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22. 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professor and researcher specializing in the strategic management of healthcare 
organizations. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140. Immigrant 1\:tition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he satisfies the membership. 
published materiaL and original contributions criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) ofthe Act states: 
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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of W-S-S-
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 two options f{)r satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a m<~jor, 
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide evidence that meets at least three 
ofthe 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. [!.','CIS', 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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): Ri;al v. U5X'IS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to he 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality.'' as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value. and credibility. both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence. to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a professor in the department of healthcare 
management at As 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). In denying the Petition. the Director found that 
that the Petitioner met the judging and scholarly articles criteria. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the membership. 
published materiaL and original contributions criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii): (iii); and. (v). 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings. and it does not support a finding 
that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation (!l the alien's membership in assocwtwns in the field .fhr which 
classification is soul{hl. which require outs! amlin~ achievements of their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or(ield\·. 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based upon his selection as a tenured 
professor at and his appointment as a vice chaim1an of the 
2 
.
Matter of W-S-S-
The Director determined that the evidence did not show that these 
entities were associations that require outstanding achievements of their members. We agree. 
The material in the petition indicates that is an academic institution of higher 
learning located in South Korea, not an association. Moreover. while the record shows that the 
university employs a rigorous process to select professors for tenured positions, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field participate in this hiring 
process, or that outstanding achievements are required of the selectees. As such. the record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's selection as a tenured professor at satisfies this 
criterion. 
In support of his contention that his appointment as a vice-chairman of establishes his 
eligibility, the Petitioner has submitted a foreign language document, asserting that it is the 
organizational articles for the society. The partially translated section of the document indicates that 
individual membership in is fee-based and open to individuals engaged as researchers or 
administrators in the field of hospital management. It also notes that the chainnan of the society may 
appoint vice-chairmen, but does not specify that the chairman be a nationally or internationally 
recognized expert in the field or that selection of vice-chairmen post be based upon the selectees' 
outstanding achievements. Further, any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate. and that the translator is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly cet1ified English 
language translation of the full document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated 
material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims that his appointment satisfies the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in pro{essional or major trade publications or other 
major media. relating to the alien's work in the .fieldfor ·which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title. date. and author ofthe material. and anv necessarv . . . 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based upon the submission of webpages from four 
foreign language online publications, reporting survey results that he presented at a ·'professional 
seminar where about 150 hospital executives and managers attended.''
1 
The foreign language 
webpages provided appear to carry the following English language titles: 
and The Director detern1ined that the Petitioner oflered 
insufficient evidence that the published material referencing the Beneficiary was about him. relating 
to his work in the field. He also found that the Petitioner did not show that these publications qualify 
as major media, professional publications, or major trade publications. We agree. 
1 
The Petitioner has not provided evidence about the seminar where he claims to have presented survey results to others 
in the field, other than the foreign language webpages described above. 
3 
.
Matter of W-S-S-
The Petitioner has submitted no certified translation of the at1icle and uncet1ified translations 
of the and articles. Because the Petitioner did not submit properly 
certified English language translations of the documents, we cannot meaningfully determine whether 
the translated material is accurate and thus supports his claims that the at1icles arc about him. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Thus, the Petitioner's claim rests solely on the article from 
The Petitioner indicated 
in his response to the Director's request for evidence that the 
publishes He asserted, without providing corroborating evidence. that the 
publication "remains the number one choice in the fiercest competition of the Internet media in South 
Korea." Additionally, he submitted a copy of a webpage that explained it changed its 
name to include the word "doctor" in its title to more clearly indicate to people that it was a ''news 
media in the specialized field of health and medical area". However, the Petitioner did not document 
this publication's circulation relative to other online publications, or provided evidence establishing that 
the publication is otherwise considered major media. Similarly. as noted by the Director in his deniaL 
the record contains conf1icting information regarding the nature of the publication, as it claims to be a 
specialized source of medical news for the Korean medical professionals and the general populace. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence clarifying the nature of the publication. The Petitioner. 
therefore, has not established that constitutes either a professional or major trade 
publication or another form of major media. 
In summary, the evidence provided does not show that the online articles are about the Petitioner, 
relating to his work in the field, or that they appeared in professional or major trade publications. or 
other major media. As such, we find that the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien "s participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge of 
the work (?f others in the same or an allied field of specification fhr which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains evidence ref1ecting that the Petitioner reviewed articles written by his peers 
while serving as the executive editor in 2014 and 2015 for the Based 
upon his experience editing the journaL we agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence qf the alien ·s original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or husiness-related 
contributions (?{major sign[ficance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
As evidence of making contributions of major significance, the Petitioner provided his publications 
and presentations, citation evidence for his published work, and letters of recommendation from 
colleagues. The Director found that this documentation did not demonstrate the Petitioner's original 
contributions of major significance in the field. For the reasons outlined belovv, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence showing that he meets the plain 
language of this criterion. 
4 
.
Matter of W-S-S-
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that he has conducted original scholarly research which has 
contributed to his academic field of interest as a result of obtaining his Ph.D in Administration 
Health Services in the United States. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner has participated in 
research activities resulting in 25 published articles and two books. He claims that his publications 
have been internationally and nationally recognized by his peers in the tield. 2 He highlights the 
significance of three articles published in international journals in particular, noting that the articles 
were cited 51 times by other scholars. Although the Petitioner claims that citations to his work 
demonstrate a contribution of major significance, he has not demonstrated that the number of 
citations for his articles is significant, or what effect his work has had on the field. 
Likewise, the Petitioner has published three books, including a textbook for which he received an 
award from his employer. He has submitted evidence demonstrating that the online sale of his 
books. However, he has not demonstrated that the subject matter presented in his books has been 
widely adopted or is otherwise considered to be of major significance within the field. 
On appeal, he also provides copies of three of the five previously submitted professional 
recommendations from his research associates and academic colleagues, indicating that these 
individuals support his contributions to the field. 3 professor and chair of the 
Division of Public Administration at the explains that she began 
working with the Petitioner in 2003 as assistant professors at and 
that she continues to collaborate with him. 
She describes the Petitioner as an ·'exceptionally 
competent, thorough, and productive health care management researcher, expert, and professor.·· 
While she asserts that he is an "extraordinary researcher who has made and will continue to make 
substantial contributions [to the field], .. she does not specify how he has made contributions of major 
significance to the field. 
assistant professor of Pharmacy Administration at the 
has participated in research projects with the Petitioner and emphasizes that he 
was "among the first to realize the value of diversification in [the] healthcare industry." 
noted that the Petitioner developed a which provided Key Performance 
Indicators for emergency medical centers to use to evaluate their performance. states that 
the Petitioner's was disseminated through the field at "literature review and brown 
bag 
lunches." However, the record does not show that has been widely adopted by healthcare 
institutions, nor has other material been provided that demonstrates that the Petitioner· s 
2 With respect to the Petitioner's published work. the regulations contain a separate criterion concerning the authorship 
of scholarly articles in professional publications. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). In Ka::arian v. US'CIS, 580 F.3d 1030. 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), the court held that publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance'' in the field. In 2010. the Ka::.arian court 
reaffinned its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated contributions of 
major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. There is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a 
contribution of major significance in the field; rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or 
presentation. 
3 
While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each letter present in the record. 
.
Matter of W-S-S-
recommendations for improvements m healthcare administration are considered to be of major 
significance within the field. 
Contributions of major significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v): see also Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, I 35-136 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown 
through his citation 
history or other evidence that his work, once published or presented. has been of major significance 
in the field. For these reasons, he has not met this criterion. 
Evidence q{the alien ·s authorship of'scholarly articles in thefield. in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). 
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications such as 
the and 
Thus. the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied 
this criterion, and 
the record supports that finding. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence that establishes his receipt of a one­
time achievement or shows that he meets 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, after reviewing the record in the aggregate, we conclude that it does not sutliciently 
demonstrate the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim or that his achievements have 
been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. For these reasons. he has not 
established he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of'W-S-S-. ID# 677380 (AAO Nov. 22, 2017)