dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

identifying 3:Eiil uJ,;k~ed to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
hvasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: m Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
EAC 02 277 53092 Date: a 1 4 2005 
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. 5 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 
ecided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
V 
:Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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. 1153(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. €j 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. 
$204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
According to Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner seeks to classify himself as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a medical researcher. The record demonstrates that the petitioner focuses on diagnosis and treatment of 
"human acariasis," defined by counsel as "infestation of acarids [a division of arachnida] inside [the] human 
body." Counsel asserts that the petitioner discovered that "wriggling acariasis could cause the diseases such as 
acne, pimps, [and] brandy nose." In addition, "[rlespitory acariasis would cause cough and asthma to such an 
extent that people would suffocate." Counsel asserts that human acariasis can be misdiagnosed as "lung 
infection, bronchitis, allergic reaction to asthma and paragonimiasis." In addition, "[u]rological acariasis could 
cause incurable haematuria and protein uremia." Counsel further asserted that the petitioner's "success of cure 
is as high as ninety-eight percent among his patients." While the record is almost silent as to what treatments 
the petitioner has developed, he indicated on Part 6 of the petition that he would be applying acupuncture. The 
petitioner's Form G-325A submitted in support of his concurrent Application to Register Permanent Residence 
-- 
Page 3 
or Adjust Status, Form 1-485, indicates that the petitioner has been working, apparently without authorization, as 
an acupuncturist. 
Finally, we note that while the petitioner claims to have a 1991 Ph.D. in Medical Science from the International 
Hygienic Medical  cade ern^,' the record does not support that assertion. The record contains a degree certificate 
from that institution, but the degree type is in Chinese and the petitioner did not submit a translation. The record 
contains no evaluation of this foreign degree. The petitioner's remaining academic credentials include a 1987 
graduation certificate affirming the petitioner's "Bachelor of Medicine" degree from the Heilongjiang Institute 
of Traditional Chinese Medicine and a 1987 "diploma" certifling: 
[The petitioner] enrolled in our school's Western medical doctor learn [sic] traditional Chinese 
medicine class, Chinese massages classes. He has completed all the required courses with 
excellent grades. Graduation is hereby granted and this diploma issued. 
The record contains no evaluation of the foreign degree and diploma. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "is in fact, one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of 'Study and treatments of Human Acariasis."' Previously, however, the petitioner concedes 
that there "used to be a shortage of research on human acariasis around the world." We will not narrow an 
alien's field to the point where there are so few people in it that comparison is meaningless. Moreover, we will 
not consider "traditional" or "alternative" medicine as a separate field. 
There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or 
unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice 
is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body 
techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and 
cultural interest. 
Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD, "Alternative medicine meets science," JournaI of the American Medical 
Association 280: 16 18-1 619, 1998. 
We note that, according to English-language abstracts, the petitioner has been claiming to isolate mites in saliva, 
feces and cerebrospinal fluid (1981), urine and venous blood (1984), skin biopsies (1985) and phlegm (1990). 
Thus, plenty of time has passed for his theories to enter mainstream science if ~alidated.~ Thus, the petitioner 
I The website address provided on the degree certificate, www.ihma.net, expired May 13, 2005 and a search 
of the name of the academy in an Internet search engine produces no responses. 
For example, in 1991, Stanley Prusiner reported the existence of prions, a previously unknown cause of 
disease. While the concept of prions was initially viewed with skepticism and is still controversial, an Internet 
Search engine search of "prions" reveals 632,000 responses and a search for Dr. Prusiner's name results in 
19,700 responses. In comparison, a search of "human acariasis" results in eight responses and a search of the 
petitioner's name results in no responses. We acknowledge that the type of international acclaim enjoyed by Dr. 
Prusiner is not required for this classification. Nevertheless, the comparison in this footnote is provided in 
support of our position that a scientist who has accomplished what the petitioner in this case claims to have 
accomplished, should be able to demonstrate far greater acclaim in the mainstream scientific community than 
demonstrated in the record. 
must demonstrate that his achievements compare with those at the very top of the field of mainstream 
parasitology or immunology. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(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 that, he claims, meets the following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted awards for medical and technology achievements from government entities in 
Heilongjiang Province from 1992, 1995 and 1998. These are provincial awards. The petitioner also submitted a 
1997 award from the Science and Technology Commission of the People's Republic of China. While the award 
recognizes research on human acariasis, the commission appears to have presented the award to the Health 
Preventive Station of Heilongjiang Province. The petitioner, however, is named as the project leader. The 
petitioner also received "First Golden Cup Award" for a paper he presented at a conference sponsored by World 
Traditional Medicine in the United States in 2000. The record contains no evidence regarding the national 
reputation of this organization, such as journalistic coverage in mainstream science journals or in a general 
media publication%ith a national distribution. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the significance of these awards. On appeal, 
counsel notes the role of the Chinese government in China and asserts that government awards are major. The 
petitioner submitted a 2003 award from the China Institute of Science Management. Counsel asserts that this 
award is competitive. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Moreover, a 2003 award does not establish the 
petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
The only national award that predates the date of filing is the 1997 award from the Science and Technology 
Commission of the People's Republic of China. The record, however, is absent evidence regarding how 
projects are selected for this award and how many awards are issued. Thus, we concur with the director that the 
petitioner has not established the significance of this award and, therefore, he cannot meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which clusslfication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orfields. 
3 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
4 To be considered significant, the publication would need to be published in a language comprehended by the 
majority of the citizens of the country in which it is distributed. 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Chinese Science and Technology Association as of 
1993 and the Heilongjiang Chapter of the Chinese Preventive Medicine Association as of 1993. The petitioner 
also submitted certification of his election to the Board of Directors of the East West Association of Chinese 
Medicine and Acupuncture. The petitioner did not submit the membership requirements for these associations. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that these memberships are restrictive. 
On appeal, counsel references two appointments as a senior research fellow as evidence to meet this criterion. 
Appointments are not memberships. Rather, these appointments will be considered below as evidence relating 
to the petitioner's role for an organization. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is a member of an association that 
requires outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts in their field. The record lacks 
the membership criteria for the associations of which the petitioner is a member. Moreover, membership in a 
local chapter of a national association typically cannot serve to meet this criterion. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
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 classrJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted the Ministry of Health, People's Republic of China's "Assembling of Technological 
Achievements in China's Public Health." It includes a page on the projects ongoing at the Public Health and 
Epidemic Prevention Station of Heilongjiang Province. The petitioner's work on human acariasis is 
summarized on this page. The petitioner also submitted three newspaper articles in Chinese, the most recent 
from 1996. The petitioner submitted a one-line summary of each article. He did not submit full and complete 
translations. 
The director stated that if the petitioner was a renowned medical expert in China, some evidence of an 
international reputation should exist. The petitioner noted that the published material was all in Chinese. On 
appeal, counsel notes the number of people in the world who are fluent in Chinese. Counsel also references the 
above award from the China Institute of Science Management to meet this criterion. That award, issued after 
the date of filing, relates to the awards criterion and has already been considered above. 
An alien need only have national, not international, acclaim in order to be eligible for the classification sought. 
That said, the director's statement is not wholly without merit. If the petitioner had truly discovered a new 
means of infection for serious diseases such as asthma, it can be expected that. in the 14 years between this 
discovery and the filing of the petition, including four years residing in the United States, the petitioner would 
have gained some type of recognition beyond the Chinese-language media. Moreover, the petitioner must 
demonstrate sustained acclaim. The petitioner did not demonstrate any coverage in the media after 1996, 
including after moving to the United States in 1998. Finally, as stated above, the petitioner did not submit full 
and complete translations of the published articles. As such, we cannot determine whether they are primarily 
about the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit the distribution data for any of the publications. 
As such, we cannot determine whether any of the publications constitute major media. In light of the above, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient@c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted two "monographs." The introduction to the exhibit containing the 1994 monograph 
"Human Acariasis in China" provides: 
This monograph is a must for medical students, clinical doctors, epidemiologists, pharmacists 
and public health officials. It [is] also a general reference for faculty and students of the 
institutions of general higher learning. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence, such as course curricula, indicating that this monograph is commonly 
assigned in medical schools across China. 
The petitioner also submitted alleged "before and after" photographs to demonstrate the success of his acne 
treatments. We note that acne is not always a constant condition and two photographs of the same person with 
and without acne are not persuasive evidence without supporting articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature 
reporting statistically significant results. The record does contain articles in Chinese journals. The record lacks, 
however, any evidence that these journals are peer reviewed or that the petitioner's articles in particular have 
influenced the field. For example, the record contains no evidence that articles in mainstream medical journals 
(or any other journals) have cited the petitioner's work. The record also lacks letters from top officials at major 
medical clinics and hospitals around China affirming that they have reproduced the petitioner's findings (for 
example, by finding mites in cerebrospinal fluid) and confirming their use of the petitioner's treatments. 
Director of the China Human Acariasis Prevention and Treatment Center in Beijing, 
the petitioner's work and his success in treatment of previously untreatable diseases. 
Such general praise without specific examples of the impact of the petitioner's 
record contains no information regarding 
The petitioner provides a similar letter from Institute of 
Heiiongjiang Harbin China. We note e both coauthors of the petitioner's 
articles. The petitioner submitted a similar The letters referenced in 
this paragraph are not from independent experts. Moreover, "was employed by 
Acariasis Association in the Commissioner [sic], China Prevention 
Mediche [sic] Association from April 1993 to letter is dated March 23, 2001, but the petitioner had 
resided in the United States since 1998. Thus, Mr. redibility is somewhat diminished. 
The petitioner also provided letters with general praise from or and Research Fellow at the 
Allergy Research Laboratory, Medicine College of Professor of Epidemiology at 
the Medical University of Harbin and Envil Chou Company. None of these 
references claim to have reproduced the petitioner's findings, such as isolating mites in blood or cerebrospinal 
fluid, or to be teaching the petitioner's treatment methods. Moreover, M 
d 
tates that the petitioner is 
"a postgraduate of [the] of [sic] M.D[.] egree at the International Hygienic 
Medical Academy in implying the petitioner received a degree in 2000, the degree is 
actually dated 199 1. If Mr the petitioner was a postdoctoral researcher in China in 
2000, the petitioner States working as an acupuncturist since 1998. 
Either way, Mr. letter has reduced evidentiary value. 
Page 7 
( in all^, Senior Research Fellow and parasitologist at the Rockefeller University, reiterates the 
claims made in the other letters. Once again, however, he does not claim to have reproduced any of the - 
petitioner's findings, to have confirmed the existence of mites living in human blood, urine or cerebrospinal 
fluid, or to be applying the petitioner's purported cures. Moreover, the record does not contain ~r- 
curriculum vitae. Thus, we are unable to evaluate his own credentials. 
The director acknowledged the letter from M but concluded that the record lacked evidence regarding 
the impact of the petitioner's work. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's monograph has been 
circulated in China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam and that the 
impact has been "gigantic and tremendous." 
As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. at 534; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1; Mutter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The record contains no evidence of the distribution of the petitioner's monographs in China or beyond. As 
discussed, the record contains no evidence, such as class curricula at mainstream medical schools, 
demonstrating that the petitioner's monographs are required reading. The record contains no evidence of the 
number of monographs sold and distributed. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that a single 
mainstream scientist has isolated the mites identified by the petitioner, thus reproducing his results, or even 
cited the petitioner's work. Thus, we cannot evaluate the impact of these monographs. We reiterate that 
while international acclaim is not required for the classification sought, the petitioner claims to have 
discovered a new basis for serious diseases and a treatment with an extremely high cure rate. The discovery 
of a new pathogen or infectious agent for serious diseases such as asthma and a corresponding cure can be 
expected to generate intense media coverage both within the medical community (such as heavy citation in 
peer-reviewed journals) and beyond. Without evidence of such a response, such as occurred when Dr. 
Stanley Prusiner isolated prions, the petitioner's claimed contribution is simply not persuasive. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As stated above, the petitioner has authored monographs and articles. He has also presented his work at 
conferences of undocumented significance. As discussed above, the petitioner must demonstrate comparable 
acclaim with the top members of the medical research field. It is inherent to this field to publish one's findings. 
Thus, we must evaluate the response to the petitioner's published work. 
The director expressed concern that the petitioner's monographs had not been translated into Chinese. As stated 
above, counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner's monographs are widely distributed in Asia. The petitioner 
also submitted two articles published in the Chinese Journal of Public Health Management. These articles post- 
date the date of filing and, thus, do not relate to the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. 
As discussed above, the record contains no evidence of the distribution of the petitioner's monographs or the 
impact of these monographs or his articles. As repeatedly stated, the record contains no evidence that medical 
researchers have reproduced the petitioner's work or that articles in peer-reviewed journals have cited the 
petitioner's work. In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner had been appointed as a professor at the International Hygiene Medical 
Academy. The envelope, postmarked 2000, is addressed to the academy itself. At the time, the petitioner was 
residing in the United States, working as an acupuncturist. Moreover, the petitioner provides no explanation for 
how he obtained this appointment in China while residing in the United States. Regardless, the record contains 
no evidence that the petitioner accepted this appointment, returned to China, and filled this role. As such, he did 
not "perform" this role, whether leading or not. We note that not every professor plays a leading or critical role 
for the institution where he teaches. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits appointments as a senior research fellow with the China Acariasis Treatment 
Center and the Heilongliang Institute of Acariasis Monitoring and Treatment Center. These appointments are 
dated 2001 and October 1, 2002. Only the 2001 appointment predates the date of filing. As with the 
appointment discussed above, however, the record contains no explanation for this appointment given the 
petitioner's residence in the United States and no evidence that he served in this role for the institutions that 
issued the appointments. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must establish the nature of the role he was hired to fill and the national 
reputation of the entity that hired him. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner was hired into a 
leading or critical role for either the International Hygiene Medical Academy, the China Acariasis Treatment 
Center or the Heilongjiang Institute of Acariasis Monitoring and Treatment. Moreover, the record contains no 
evidence that any of these institutions enjoy a distinguished reputation nationally. Thus, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a medical 
researcher 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 indicates that the petitioner is a 
prolific author with some degree of exposure in the Chinese epidemiology literature, but is not persuasive that 
the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his fieid of medical research. 
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. ~ccordin~l~, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.