dismissed EB-1A Case: Maternal And Child Health

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8867558 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a maternal and child health specialist, 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 either through a one-time 
achievement or meeting the requirements of at least three of the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In addition, the Director found that the Petitioner had not established that she is coming to the United 
States to work in her area of expertise, and that her entry would not substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that she serves as the principal of thd bccupational (sometimes 
translated as "Vocational" in the record) Technical Training School (I I School"), and 
writes, teaches and participates in Chinese government initiatives to promote and provide information 
about breastfeeding. 1 She states that she intends to establish a similar education and training company 
devoted to maternal and child health in New Jersey. 
A. Translation of Foreign Language Material 
In his decision, the Director noted that a translation of foreign language evidence, specifically an 
article published in the Beijing Evening News onl 12013 that the Petitioner asserts is 
about her, "uses the term "prostitute" as a synonym for "prolactinist" in two instances," and goes on 
to state that this inconsistency casts doubt on the reliability of this evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner 
argues that she is not responsible for the mistakes made by a third-party translator, and that despite 
these mistakes, the article as a whole is about the Petitioner and her work as a prolactinist. We agree 
that the errors in this translation referred to in the Director's decision do not materially affect the 
meaning of the article. However, after review, we note that this is not the only translation in the record 
which contains errors or discrepancies. 
For example, the Petitioner submitted a reference letter froml I who states that he is a 
graduate ofl !Medical College. I I then goes on to describe the Petitioner's 
background and career accomplishments, stating that she "has been engaged in maternity, medical and 
scientific research for 40 years." He also lists several other positions and accomplishments, including 
I lofthe Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology o~ I Health Science Center, 
appointment as an expert of the I I Children's Fund, and serving on the boards of two 
medical journals. As the record does not include evidence of any of the positions and accomplishments 
listed, and the Petitioner could not have had forty years of medical and scientific experience Jiven her 
age at the time of filing, it is likely that this portion of the original letter describes I s career, 
1 The Petitioner's statements and evidence in the record use the terms "prolactinist" and "prolacer" to describe a 
breastfeeding consultant. 
2 
not the Petitioner's. We also note that is referred to as a professor in the Department of 
Obstetrics at ~-----~---~·Hospital in an article about a breastfeeding knowledge and 
skills competition posted on the hospital's website on August 13, 2018. However, the translation of 
his letter clearly attributes these accomplishments to the Petitioner, reflecting either unsupported 
claims in the content of the original letter or, more likely, an erroneous translation. 
Another example of erroneous translations was completed by a different translator than in the above 
examples. The Petitioner submitted three certificates which the translations indicate were issued to 
her by the "Education and Training Center of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security." 
The translations identify these as "certification letters" for "Child EQ Instructor Post Training Project 
Cooperation," Senior Prolactin Post Training Project Cooperation," and "Maternal and Child Care 
Nurse Job Training Project Cooperation." The translations also indicate that all three certificates were 
signed on July 14, 2015 and refer to the "cooperation period" as being from July 20, 2015 to July 19, 
2017. However, the dates on the original certificates can be easily understood as they are written 
numerically, and none match the dates shown on the translations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states that any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a foll English language translation. 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. Id. Here, the required translators' certifications have been 
submitted along with the foreign language material, but the above examples reveal a pattern of 
inaccuracy in the English translations. Although each of these examples can individually be explained 
as simple error, together they cast significant doubt as to the reliability of all of the translations in the 
record. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. The examples given above are apparent 
without knowledge of Chinese language or writing, but they lead to questions about the existence of 
material translation errors that are less visible without that knowledge. Accordingly, while we note 
that the Petitioner has submitted a corrected translation of the Beijing Evening News article on appeal, 
we will consider the evidentiary value of all other translated material in the record to be significantly 
reduced. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she 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 published material about her and her work, and her 
participation as a judge of the work of others in her field. We will not disturb the Director's 
conclusions regarding these criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the 
evidentiary criteria relating to a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
3 
reputation. 2 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not 
establish that she meets the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
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 order to meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they served in a 
qualifying role for an organization or establishment, and that the organization or establishment enjoys 
a distinguished reputation. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is ( or was) 
a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is ( or was), in fact, 
leading. If a critical role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A 
supporting role may be considered "critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is ( or was) 
important in that way. It is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather their performance in the role 
that determines whether it is ( or was) critical. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion based upon her roles with two organizations: 
I I School and thd b. Regarding her position 
with I I she submitted a certificate indicating that she was appointed asl lof the 
organization's Maternal and Child Health and Education Committee (MCHEC) on July 18, 2018 for 
a period of four years. An organizational chart submitted with this certificate in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) shows the Petitioner as the leader of this committee, with three 
unnamed deputy directors reporting to her. Those deputy directors in tum lead several departments of 
unknown staffing levels, including an "International Breastfeeding Department" and a "Matemal­
Child Nursing Department," as well as a "Baby Swimming Department" and an "Infant Sports and 
Health Department." The evidence also includes a letter with the seal of the committee, describing 
her duties in managing the various departments listed on the organizational chart. However, as noted 
by the Director, this letter is not signed by an individual having higher authority within! I and so 
its authenticity cannot be verified. Since neither the organizational chart nor the letter indicate that 
the Petitioner reports to a higher authority within the committee, this letter can be considered to have 
been composed and stamped by her, and thus to have limited evidentiary value. 
More importantly, the record includes evidence which contradicts the Petitioner's claim to the leading 
role for this committee. An article which was posted on a website labelled as the "China Maternal and 
Child Professional Network" discusses a ceremony and lecture inl 12018 which was co-hosted 
by the MCHEC and other organizations. This article includes a long list of attendees, including the 
Petitioner, who is identified as thel I of Maternal and Child Health Special Fund of the 
China Scholarship Foundation. 3 Another individual,! I, is named as th~I Inf 
2 The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's negative finding regarding four other evidentiary criteria (8 C.F.R. §§ 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), and (vi) on appeal, nor does she renew her claim to comparable evidence under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). We therefore consider these issues to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. US. Atf)J Gen, 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 
30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 This organization is identified by several different names in the record, including the China Student Health Development 
4 
the MCHEC, a position which does not appear in the organizational chart submitted by the Petitioner. 
This article does not identify any role for the Petitioner with the MCHEC one month after she is 
claimed to have been appointed as its leader, and names another individual as occupying a leadership 
position for the committee. 
Another article, from the website of an organization with a similar name, the China Maternal and Child 
Health Association, contains similar information regarding a meeting held to establish the MCHEC in 
c=J2018. This article identifies the Petitioner as the .__ _____ ____,of the Management 
Committee of the China Student Health Development Foundation, but it does not indicate that she has 
any role with the MCHEC. In additionJ I is named as the I lof the foundation, and a 
photograph and caption shows him receiving a plaque on behalf of the MCHEC. 
As noted above regarding the inconsistencies in the English translations in the record, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Here, these two articles, in addition to the 
previously mentioned article from the website of.__ _________ __.Hospital which also fails 
to mention her claimed role with the MCHEC, directly contradict the Petitioner's claims and other 
evidence in the record. We therefore find that she has not established that she plays a leading or critical 
role for the MCHEC, or forl loverall. 
Regarding her role as a founder and principal a~ !School, the Petitioner asserts on appeal 
that the Director erred in discounting the letter from the school's human resources manager. We agree 
that the Director's statement that "he or she will write whatever [the Petitioner] tells him or her to 
write" indicates that he failed to properly consider this evidence. The letter indicates that the Petitioner 
has served as vice principal or principal at the I I School since 2007 and provides an 
extensive list of duties that she performs in this role. However, we note that the "Private Non­
enterprise Unit Registration Certificate" submitted by the Petitioner lists only I I as a 
legal representative, and the Petitioner has not submitted other business documentation ( such as 
articles, minutes or bylaws) which confirms her leading role withl Jschool. In addition, 
a promotional brochure from the school lists the Petitioner's short biography along with others under 
the heading of "International Faculty," and does not otherwise indicate that she acts as the school's 
principal as opposed to only a faculty member. Further, the article appearing in Beijing Evening News 
states that "Before becoming a professional prolactin trainer, she was a trainer in a state-owned 
enterprise," and notes that she resigned from her work in 2010 and only gained certification to train 
other prolactinists two years later. This evidence is not consistent with her claimed performance in a 
leading or critical role atl I School since 2007, as indicated in the letter from the human 
resources manager. 
We note that another article ublished on the website of China Radio International on 
2018, is titled '----------------------------------~ [Petitioner]." However, it does not include quotations from the Petitioner, or a list of questions and 
answers, but instead consists of a detailed and glowing account of the Petitioner's career and the 
Foundation, the China Scholarship Development Foundation and the China Overseas Study Talent Development 
Foundation. However. on appeal the Petitioner does not base her claim to this criterion on a leading or critical for this 
organization, nor does she provide evidence in support of its reputation. 
5 
school's activity, repeatedly reminding the reader that she is the leader o~ !school. In 
other words, the content of this article is not consistent with its identification as an interview in the 
title. Also, although the author is given as "North Country Network" and an editor named, the article's 
tone is entirely self-promotional, and refers to the school as "we" in the fifth paragraph. As the true 
source of this material is questionable, it is insufficient to overcome the discrepancies listed above. 
In addition, the evidence does not establish that I I School has a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner initiall submitted several certificates received by the school, including "20131 I 
issued b~ China's Health Research 
magazme. Also submitted were certificates showing awards for "2015 I I I' from the China Health Management Forum Committee, and in the same 
year, '~----------------,,,.......------------------~ from the 
National Medical Education Development Center. However, little information was provided in the 
record about these awards, and inconsistencies appear here as well. An article posted on the web 
portal finance.ifeng.com, which lists as its source "China Commercial Telecommunications" and its 
editor as "robot," indicates that the 2013 award was given to th~ I School at the 'c=J I I" It also states that despite the name of the award, it 
was the only training school awarded. However, a copy of the certificate which is included in this 
article is substantially different from what the Petitioner asserts is the same certificate elsewhere in the 
record. Therefore, due to the discrepancies in the certificate and the lack of information regarding the 
source of the article, this evidence does not show that the school enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Other evidence includes a webpage concerning the 2015 China Health Management Forum, where the 
evidence indicates thatl !School received the I t award 
mentioned above. While this document provides information about the forum and its focus on 
healthcare management, it does not mention any awards given at the event. In the absence of farther 
information about this certificate, why the school received it, and how many other certificates were 
awarded at this event, we do not find that this evidence establishes the school's distinguished 
reputation. 
For all of the reasons given above, we find that the Petitioner 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, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. 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 her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
6 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b)(l)(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 she 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 her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7