dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
IP~~ detll (!dded to 
 and Immigration 
pre~& dearly unwarranded 
i*qqdm of penwad D~WW 
FILE: WAC 04 045 5 1996 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 1 6 2W6 
. .. . 
N 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. 9 1 153(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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 045 5 1996 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice 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. 3 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. 
The Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed on December 2,2003. Under Part 2 of the Form 
1-140, the petitioner checked box "a" indicating that her petition was being filed for classification as "an alien of 
extraordinary ability." In a letter accompanying the petition, the counsel stated: "We are writing this letter in 
support of the immigrant visa petition of [the petitioner]. As explained below and as documented in the attached 
exhibits, petitioner clearly qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability under INA 203(b)(l)(A), as amended." 
On appeal, counsel states: "Petitioner petitioned simultaneously for EB 1 as an alien of extraordinary ability and 
alternatively for National Interest Waiver. Petitioner's petition for National Interest Waiver was completely left 
unaddressed."' 
A petitioner, however, is not entitled to multiple adjudications and decisions for a single petition with a single 
fee. If the petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
alien of exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act, then she should file a separate 1-140 
petition requesting such classification. Counsel has cited no statute, regulation, or standing precedent that 
permits the petitioner to bundle several adjudications into one petition, or that entitles the petitioner to multiple 
separate adjudications on the basis of one petition, one record of proceeding, and one fee. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(a)(l), every petition must be filed in accordance with the instructions on the form. The instructions on 
Part 2 of the 1-140 petition include the instruction to "check one" classification. Consequently, discussion in this 
matter may relate only to the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 
1 
 The requirements for a "National Interest Waiver" fall under the purview of section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act. 
WAC 04 045 5 1996 
Page 3 
(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. 
5 204.5(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 she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability as a medical doctor and researcher. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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. 
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. 
The petitioner submitted articles about herself appearing in and 
me concur with counsel that these articles are adequate to satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from her immediate colleagues and from patients for whom she has 
provided treatment. The letters from her patients and their family members are inherently anecdotal, and are 
not adequate to show that the petitioner has earned national or international acclaim throughout the greater 
medical community. 
Drrofessor of Medicine (Emeritus), Tel Aviv University, states: 
[The petitioner] began her career in Israel by carrying out research at the Tel Aviv University in order 
to clarify the impact of Chines 
 niques on the development of cancer in animals. At the 
same time she worked 
 the director of the Pulmonary Department of the Chaim 
Sheba Medical Center, 
 , on a project to determine what effects Chinese medical treatment 
had on patients with asthma. The results of both of these experiences have been published in highly 
reputable medical journals and they indicate that there is clearly an impact of this treatment in both 
areas of interest. By this work, [the petitioner] has made a significant contribution to medicine, not only 
in Israel but also in the medical world at large. 
WAC 04 045 5 1996 
Page 4 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of a "significant contribution" to 
one's field; we must also consider the greater scientific community's reaction to those articles. When judging 
the influence and impact that the petitioner's published work has had, the very act of publication is not as 
reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of 
originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is important or influential if there is little 
evidence that other researchers have relied upon the petitioner's findings. Frequent citation by independent 
researchers, however, would demonstrate widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. If, on 
the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that that work has gone largely 
unnoticed by the greater research community, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's work is not 
nationally or internationally acclaimed as a contribution of major significance. In this case, the petitioner has 
submitted no citation indices showing that her published studies related to asthma and cancer have had a 
substantial impact in her field. 
Dr further states: 
A significant contribution of [the petitioner] to the medical community is her invention of two Chinese 
medicines: Anti-Cancer Number One ("ACNO) and Ping Chuan Chong Ji. [The petitioner's] lab 
experiments showed that ACNO has an effect equivalent to chemo therapy agents in killing Kurkat 
cells; however, compared to chemo therapy agents, [the petitioner's] medicine elicits very little toxicity 
to T-lymphocytes which is an important contributor to a healthy immune system in the human body. 
Ping Chuan Chong Ji is capable of preventing asthma episodes by affecting a T-cell sub group. 
[The petitioner's] work has the potential to improve the level of preventative medicine. There is 
currently skepticism in the West concerning Chinese Medicine but [the petitioner's] research should 
legitimize this modality resulting in wider use of Chinese Medicine along with conventional medicine 
for the benefit of patients and physician alike. 
D discusses the "potential" of the petitioner's work "to improve the level of preventative medicine," 
but his personal observations are not adequate to demonstrate that either of the petitioner's medicines rise to 
the level of a contribution of major significance in the medical field. Speculation regarding the future impact 
of the petitioner's research is not adequate to demonstrate eligibility under this criterion. A visa petition may 
not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The evidence is not adequate to 
show that the petitioner's medicinal treatments are widely acknowledged by researchers outside of her circle 
of collaborators as particularly significant breakthroughs. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence showing that she is seeking a patent in the United States for an 
antineoplastic drug. This evidence cannot be accepted, however, because it came into existence subsequent to 
the petition's filing date. 
 See Matter of Katigbak at 45, 49. 
 In regard to the petitioner's U.S. patent 
application and the patents that she claims to hold in Israel for her Anti-Cancer Number One and Ping Chuan 
Chong Ji drugs, there is no evidence showing that they represent a contribution of major significance in the 
medical field. We note here that anyone may file a patent application, regardless of whether the invention 
constitutes a significant contribution. Further, the granting of a patent demonstrates only that an invention is 
original. According to statistics released by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which 
WAC 04 045 5 1996 
Page 5 
are available on its website at www.us~~to.~ov, the USPTO has approved over one hundred thousand patents 
per year since 1991. In 2001, for example, the USPTO received 345,732 applications and granted 183,975 
patents. Therefore, given the amount of patent applications that the USPTO receives on an annual basis, we 
find it implausible that simply filing a patent automatically qualifies as a contribution of major significance in 
one's field. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the patent application related to the petitioner's 
antineoplastic drug was approved by the USPTO at the time of filing, that major pharmaceutical companies 
have expressed significant interest in marketing her drugs on a national or international scale, or that her 
drugs have provided a measurable national health benefit (rather than a benefit limited only to the three 
thousand or so patients who have visited her clinic). 
In regard to the letters of support submitted with this petition, we note that the testimonials in this case were 
limited to immediate colleagues of the petitioner, her patients, and their family members. These letters are 
not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained national or international acclaim for her 
contributions outside of the medical institutions where she has worked. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater 
field, we cannot conclude that her 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 her authorship of articles in publications such as International 
Immunopharmacology, The Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, and The 
Chinese Journal of Rural Medicine. On appeal, counsel describes these publications as "the most prestigious 
professional journals." The record, however, includes no journal ranking data (such as an IS1 Journal Citation 
Report) comparing the impact factor of these journals to that of other medical journals. 
As the publication of one's findings is an inherent duty of researchers in the medical community, the 
petitioner must distinguish her articles as superior to those of other competent researchem2 A petition for an 
alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. See 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The evidence presented by the petitioner must be evaluated and properly weighed in 
terms of the governing statute and regulations; it is not simply a matter of accepting that any piece of 
evidence presented under a particular criterion automatically satisfies that criterion. By way of analogy, 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) sometimes requires copies of income tax returns to establish that 
the petitioner has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. The petitioner, however, does not 
automatically meet this requirement by submitting a copy of an income tax return. Rather, we must consider 
the content of that income tax return; if it does not show that the petitioner can afford to pay the beneficiary, 
then the petitioner cannot credibly argue that it met its obligation merely by supplying the copy of the tax 
For example, if a given article in a medical journal 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 herself has cited sources in her 
own articles. Numerous independent citations would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced 
by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. A lack of cites to an article, on the other hand, indicates that that work 
has gone largely unnoticed by the greater field. 
WAC 04 045 5 1996 
Page 6 
return. The same reasoning applies to evidence presented under the criteria 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Without 
evidence showing that the petitioner's published work is widely cited by independent researchers, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her leading role for International Chinese Medicine Cancer Research Center 
of Israel (ICMCRCI). The evidence of record, however, is not adequate demonstrate that this organization 
(which was established within the last decade) has earned a distinguished national or international reputation 
when compared to other medical institutions or cancer research centers. The articles appearing in the Israeli 
media (which have been addressed under the "published materials" criterion) only briefly mention the ICMCRCI 
or mention the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center or Chaim Sheba Medical Center instead. Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the ICMCRCI receives substantially more private or public funding than that of other 
cancer research centers. Nor is there evidence showing that published studies released by the ICMCRCI are 
often cited in medical journals or media reports. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of her tax return for 2003 reflecting "business" income of 623,416 NIS. The 
petitioner also submitted a letter from her accountant stating: 
I . . . acknowledge that [the petitioner] is a Chinese doctor who specialized in cancer research and has 
her own clinic. Her income is approximately 100,000 NIS for a month. 
 30% goes to the clinic 
expenses that includes: rent, employees' salaries, materials etc. Another 30% goes to taxes and the rest 
for living and research founding. 
The petitioner also submitted a salary table for Israeli doctors listing "the average salary in the second half of 
2000 . . . in government hospitals." As noted by her accountant, however, the petitioner runs her own private 
practice clinic rather than working in a government hospital. The plain wording of this criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." In this instance, the 
petitioner has provided salary information that is limited to government doctors rather than doctors in private 
practice. Another flaw in the petitioner's comparison is that her salary data is for 2000 rather than 2003, the 
year of her tax return. Finally, as noted by the director, the petitioner's use of average salary statistics is not 
appropriate. The petitioner's evidence must demonstrate that her compensation places her at the very top of 
her field rather than above average in her field. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, we find that the evidence satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
WAC 04 045 5 1996 
Page 7 
almost all others in her 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. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.