dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 0 7 20YwrcE: TEXAS sERVICE CENTER 
INRE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washinsrton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on June 12, 2012. Subsequently, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the 
petitioner's appeal on November 3, 2012. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to 
reopen, filed on December 3, 2012. The motion will be dismissed. AAO's previous decision will 
be affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. 
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF A MOTION 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii) informs the public of the filing requirements for a 
motion and provides in subsection (C) that a motion shall be submitted on Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, and it must be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity 
of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, 
nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
On motion, the petitioner has failed to submit a statement indicating if the validity of the AAO's 
November 3, 2012 unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) 
requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
Accordingly, the petitioner's motion must be dismissed pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4) without regard to the claims contained within the motion. 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
The petitioner's motion must also be dismissed because it does not meet the requirements for a motion 
to reopen. A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a heavy burden and "must state the new facts 
to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary 
evidence." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Based on the plain meaning of"new," a new fact is evidence that 
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. 
See Matter of Singh, 24 I&N Dec. 331, 334 (BIA 2007). In short, a motion to reopen seeks a new 
hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399, 
403 (BIA 1991). Based on its discretion, "the INS [now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS)] has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. [USCIS] should have the 
right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by 
aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish 
a prima facie case." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988). The result also needlessly wastes the time 
and efforts of the triers of fact who must attend to the filing requests. /d. 
On motion, the petitioner claims that he has provided evidence showing that he meets the nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the 
published material relating to his work criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On 
motion, the petitioner has provided the following evidence: (1) photographs and documents relating 
to his receipt of the . 
; (2) documents relating to the ; (3) 
documents relating to his receipt of the 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
(4) a June 28, 2011letter from 
, Ph.D. L.Ac., Professor of Family and Community Medicine at the 
(5) copies of published material and a wikipedia.com article entitled 
; (6) online printouts relating to acupuncturists' salary; (7) the petitioner's 
2010, 2009 and 2003 tax returns; (8) an online printout on historical currency exchan!!e rates 
between the U.S. dollar and the Japanese Yen; (9) documents relating to the petitioner's 
_ application; and (10) the petitioner's undated statement. The 
petitioner had previously submitted most of these documents in support of his petition, in response 
to the director's request for evidence (RFE) or in support of his appeal. 
The petitioner's motion to reopen is dismissed for the following reasons. First, on motion, the 
petitioner has submitted online foreign language printouts relating to the 
and acupuncturists' salary that were translated using an online translation 
service, Google Translate. These foreign language documents have no evidentiary value and will 
not be considered, because they have not been properly translated pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). None of these foreign language documents are accompanied by a complete 
English translation or a certification of translation. The petitioner has provided no evidence 
showing that a translator who is competent to translate from the foreign language into English 
completely and accurately translated the foreign language documents into English. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3). As such, these foreign language documents submitted on motion have no evidentiary 
value and the AAO will not considered them. 
Second, the remaining documents submitted on motion do not constitute "new" facts or evidence, 
such that they were not available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous 
proceeding. See Matter of Singh, 24 I&N Dec. at 334; see also Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. at 
403. Specifically, on motion, most of the documents submitted predate the director's June 12, 2012 
denial of the petitioner's petition and/or the AAO's November 3, 2012 dismissal of the petitioner's 
appeal. Indeed, the petitioner had previously submitted most of these documents. The AAO, in its 
November 3, 2012 decision, considered these documents, and concluded that they do not establish 
the petitioner's visa eligibility. As the petitioner has not challenged the AAO's legal findings in a 
motion to reconsider, the AAO will not again consider these documents in the present motion to 
reopen. 
In addition, on motion, the petitioner has submitted a number of online printouts that postdate the 
AAO's November 3, 2012 decision. The petitioner has failed to establish that these documents 
were not available and could not have been discovered or presented in the previous proceeding. See 
Matter of Singh, 24 I&N Dec. at 334; see also Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. at 403. Specifically, 
the petitioner has failed to show that he could not have printed and submitted the same online 
documents before the director's June 12, 2012 decision or the petitioner's July 10, 2012 appeal. In 
short, the petitioner has failed to show that any of the documents submitted on motion constitute 
new facts or evidence, such that a motion to reopen is warranted. 
Notwithstanding the petitioner's evidentiary deficiencies discussed above, on motion, the petitioner 
has not overcome the AAO's November 3, 2012 finding that he has not submitted qualifying 
(b)(6)
Page4 
evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic 
eligibility requirements. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In its November 3, 2012 decision, the AAO concluded that the record "lacks evidence of the criteria 
for the and the expertise of the judges such that the petitioner 
has established that [the award] is an award for excellence in medicine, rather than recognition of a 
commitment to freedom and peace through medicine." On motion, the petitioner resubmits a 
December 14, 2010 document entitled "Reason for Presenting Award," indicating that the petitioner 
was given the award because he is "highly regarded to contribute to human happiness and world 
peace with saving a lot of people with physical or mental problem in or outside Japan, based on the 
unique theory and longtime clinical experience." The petitioner also resubmits an English 
translation entitled "History of Organization," indicating that the purpose of the 2004 award "is to 
support the recipient in his or her professional activities and encourage them [sic] to continue to 
inform the world of their [sic] respective cultural profession." Neither of these two previously 
submitted documents establishes, or even mentions, that excellence in medicine was a consideration 
for granting the petitioner the 2004 award. 
Moreover, the "Recipient Decision Process" section of the English translation entitled "History of 
the Organization" rovides, "Professional Recommendation from Third Party ~ 
' Neither this document nor any other document 
submitted on motion establishes the identity or the expertise of the "Board of Judges." In short, on 
motion, the petitioner has failed to overcome the AAO's adverse finding regarding the 2004 award. 
Furthermore, on motion, the petitioner has failed to overcome the AAO's finding that the 2010 
_ has no "recognition beyond the presenting 
organization." Specifically, on motion, the petitioner submits documents from the . _ ~ s website 
and individuals associated with the to show the recognition of his 2010 certificate. Such 
self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 
SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO 
did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status 
as major media). The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more 
independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the 2010 
conference or certificate recipient(s) in nationally circulated publications. 
In addition, the petitioner points to Professor j s June 28, 2011 letter, previously submitted to 
support his petition, to show that he meets this criterion. Professor s letter, however, makes no 
mention of either the petitioner's 2004 award or his 2010 certificate, or establishes that either award 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
Accordingly, the AAO dismisses the petitioner's motion to reopen as relating to this criterion. 
Published material 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. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In its November 3, 2012 decision, the AAO concluded that the petitioner had abandoned this 
criterion on appeal because he did not "contest the director's [adverse] findings for this criterion or 
offer additional arguments" establishing that he met this criterion. On motion, the petitioner asserts 
that he meets this criterion without specifically challenging the AAO's finding that he had 
abandoned this criterion on appeal. As the petitioner has not specifically challenged the AAO's 
finding or provided any legal or factual support showing that the AAO erred, the AAO's finding on 
appeal - that the petitioner had abandoned this criterion - remains valid and will not be 
reconsidered. See Sepulveda v. United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the 
United States District Court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them 
on appeal to the AAO). 
Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show through the documents submitted on motion that the 
articles, many of them accompanied by incomplete English translations, were published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. On motion, the IJetitioner has 
submitted one document relating to one publication, entitled . _ . " from 
wikipedia.com. As there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user­
edited Internet site, the AAO will not assign any evidentiary weight to information from 
wikipedia.com.
1 
See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). 
Finally, the articles in the are about not "about" the petitioner; rather they are 
about incurable hiccups. While the articles mention that the petitioner flew out 
to see him after seeing his condition on television, they do provide the final outcome or otherwise 
suggest that the petitioner successfully treated his condition. 
1 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of 
individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure 
of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that 
nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide 
you with complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given 
article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields . ... 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on April 23, 2013, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Accordingly, the AAO dismisses the petitioner's motion to reopen as relating to this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In his June 12, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner had not met this criterion 
because he had not submitted any evidence in support of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner did 
not challenge the director's finding or present any argwnent establishing that he met this criterion. 
As such, the petitioner had abandoned this criterion on appeal, and may not now raise it on motion. 
See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show through the documents submitted on motion that he has 
commanded a high salary or other significant! y high remuneration for services, in relation to others 
in the field. The only evidence he has submitted relating to others' salary and remuneration is 
online foreign language printouts that have not been properly translated pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 103.2(b )(3). As discussed, these foreign language documents have no evidentiary value 
and they fail to show that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the AAO dismisses the petitioner's motion to reopen as relating to this criterion. 
In conclusion, the petitioner's motion to reopen is dismissed because the petitioner has failed to 
submit a statement regarding any judicial proceeding relating to the validity of the AAO's 
November 3, 2012 unfavorable decision and because the petitioner's filing does not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed; the AAO's November 3, 2012 decision is 
affirmed; and the petition remains denied.