dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

,". 
 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
'-I 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W , Rm. 3000 
Waihington, DC 20529 
U.S. citizenship . 
and Immigration 
Services 
'52, 
I 
, FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 2 2 2006 
EAC 05 224 50464 
\ 
\ INRE: 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
 . 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
i 
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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
'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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). 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 he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on August 5, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a physician and researcher. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The 
record reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since August 20, 2000. Given the 
"length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 
four years and eleven months), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United 
States during that time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
- 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejeld for which classijcation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted a "Physician's Certificate of 
Qualification" allegedly issued to him by the Henan Provincial Department of Health on March 5, 2000. We do 
not find, however, that a earning a "Certificate of Qualification" issued by a provincial government is tantamount 
to membership in an association requiring outstanding achievement. According to the material provided by the 
petitioner, obtaining this certificate is a standard requirement for practicing physicians in China. Without this 
certification, the petitioner would not have been permitted to practice medicine. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that obtaining this credential required outstanding achievement in the medical field or that the 
petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in order to receive his credential. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thejeld. 
In response to the directoris notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted letters of support from 
These letters in other information t ou 
which these indrviduals may be contacted 
hrgh~ 
tate that they admire the 
petitioner for his skill and experience as a 
 ations are not adequate to 
demonstrate that the petitioner is widely recognized throughout his field for an original scientific contribution 
of major significance. Vague statements attesting to the petitioner's standing and skill are less persuasive than 
specific examples of his medical achievements. 
 - 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter of support from 
New  ork kc red its the petitioner w!th "inventing many eilkctive therapies which are not 
- Page 4 
reported in medical literature." Pursuant to the statute and regulations, the classification sought requires 
documentary evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, and the petitioner cannot arbitrarily 
replace such evidence with attestations from his alleged associates, who assert that they find his therapies to 
be effective. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential or highly acclaimed b,y independent medical practitioners at the national or international level, we 
1 
cannot conclude he meets this criterion. 
'~vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
I 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted what are alleged to be training 
materials and scholarly articles written by him in 1998 and early 2000. The record, however, includes no 
evidence showing that this material was published in "professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." For example, there is no evidence demonstrating that these articles had substantial national or 
international readership. Further, the petitioner failed to provide full English language translations of this 
material as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). Nor is there is evidence of the field's reaction 
to the petitioner's articles, or any indication that they are widely viewed as significantly influential. For 
example, the record includes no citation indices showing that the petitioner's articles are frequently cited by 
others in his field.' 
 For these reasons, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration 
a for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner submitted what is alleged to be a May 23,1999 
"Agreement, of Cooperation" between him and Xi-An Army Hospital stating: "Based on this agreement, [the 
petitioner] will receive a remuneration of 370,000 yuans RMB . . . ." This agreement, however, includes no 
name, address, telephone number, or any other information through which an official at this hospital may be 
contacted. Nor is there supporting financial documentation (such as payroll records or income tax forms) 
showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any given period of time. Further, the plain wording of this 
criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of high remuneration "in relation to others in the field." 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to 
others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner earns a level of compensation that places him among 
the highest paid physicians in the United States or China. .Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
The record includes a photocopy of the petitioner's Chinese passport, issued in Henan on April 19, 2000. 
Astonishingly, under "Profession," the passport identifies the petitioner as a "Manager," despite his claim that 
he is nationally recognized in China as a physician, surgeon, and orthopedist. The petitioner has not resolved 
this discrepancy. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
' Frequent citation by independent researchers would demonstrate widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's 
work. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of his work, suggesting that that work has gone largely 
unnoticed by the greater research community, then it is reasonable to conclude that his articles are not nationally or 
internationally acclaimed. 
Page 5 
independent objectiv; evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitibnerys proof may, of course, lead to 
a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa 
petition. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Further, the record does not establish that whatever acclaim the 
petitioner had in China during the 1990's has been sustained since his entry into the United States in 2000. 
There is no evidence that the petitioner has sustained national acclaim as a medical practitioner in this 
. 8 
country. 
The petitioner's appeal was filed on May 8, 2006. The appellate submission was accompanied by supporting 
evidence (which has been addressed in this decisidnj: On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal to the AAO, the 
petitioner indicated that a brief andlor evidence would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days. As of this date, 
more than six months later, the AAO has received nothing further. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his 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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. *