dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine / Invention

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
 Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
prevent clearly unwanated 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
'J 0 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 2 2 2009 
LIN 08 077 50972 
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 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
whn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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, 
60898-99 (Nov. 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. fj 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 sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 10,2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an inventor, an acupuncturist, and a doctor. 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, internationally 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. A 
petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence 
that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the 
petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
 The petitioner has submitted evidence 
pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the 2003 Invention & New Product Exhibition (INPEX) 
tradeshow in Pittsburgh stating that his medical device was a Silver Medal International Award 
Winner. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a July 25, 2008 
letter from INPEX, confirmin that he was "awarded a 
silver medal in the medical category" for his invention at INPEX 2003. g letter further 
states: 
INPEXB is America's Largest Invention Trade Show. 
Every invention and new product idea on display at INPEXB is eligible to be judged as a 
part of the International Awards Program. Winners are determined on the basis of 
usefulness, creativity and overall appeal. Winning an INPEXB award may add credibility to 
an invention and may also increase the possibility of exposure through resulting publicity. 
While INPEXB makes every effort to generate media coverage, any coverage is at the 
discretion of the media outlet. 
In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's receipt of a silver medal at INPEX 
2003 garnered any media coverage. Further, 
 self-serving statement that "INPEXQ is 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
America's Largest Invention Trade Show" is not corroborated by any supporting evidence. 
Moreover, according to the INPEX internet site, the number of awards annually conferred by the 
trade show is ~ubstantial.~ Finally, the record does not include any objective evidence regarding the 
national or international significance of the petitioner's INPEX silver medal within the medical field. 
The petitioner submitted an Honor Certificate for "IENA 2002 International Exhibitions 'Ideas- 
Inventions-Innovations"' in Nuremberg, Germany stating that ' (rather than the petitioner) 
"was awarded a silver medal for excellent achievement." The IENA 2002 Honor Certificate initially 
submitted by the petitioner was not accompanied by a certified English language translation. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. 
 In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner submitted an English language translation of the IENA 2002 Honor Certificate, but it was 
not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2 b 3 Further, we 
cannot ignore that the Honor Certificate was presented to the petitioner's son, " &," rather than 
to the petitioner himself. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires evidence of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. We cannot conclude that an award that was 
not specifically presented to the petitioner is tantamount to his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized award. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate issued to him "In Recognition of Participation" in the "Yankee 
Invention Exposition 2007." A participation certificate does not equate to a prize or an award. The 
petitioner also submitted a certificate from the Judging Chairman of the Yankee Invention 
Exposition stating that the petitioner received an "International Invention Award." The petitioner's 
initial submission also included an October 13, 2007 letter from of 
Yankee Invention Exposition, Inc., stating that he enjoyed seeing the petitioner's inventions and 
requesting that the petitioner "return to the United States . . . to have further business discussions" 
regarding his inventions. The October 13, 2007 letter, however, does not provide any information 
regarding the significance of the petitioner's award. 
With regard to the petitioner's awards from the preceding inventors' exhibitions, we note that the 
petitioner did not provide information regarding the number or percentage of exhibitors who earned 
some type of recognition. For example, according to the Yankee Invention Exposition's internet site, 
the 2007 exhibition in which the petitioner participated had 96 exhibits and conferred 23 awards, 
including top awards for "Best of   how."^ Thus, almost one quarter of the exposition participants 
received some form of recognition. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
See h~://www.inpex.com/international-invention-awards.aspx, h~://www.inpex.com/iu~-awards.aspx, 
http://www.inpex.com/special-awards.aspx, and http://www.inpex.com/merit-awards.as x, accessed on September 3, 
2009, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
See htt~://www.~ankeeinventionex~o.or~/past 07 exhibit 1ist.htm and http:Nwww.~ankeeinventionexpo.orq/ 
past 07 award winners.htm, accessed on September 3,2009, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized 
in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's awards had a significant level of recognition 
beyond the context of the preceding exhibitions. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which 
classzJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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. Further, 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 request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
Liaoning Acupuncture and Moxibustion Society stating: 
China Association for Acupuncture and Moxibustion is the largest and the most authoritative 
acupuncture and moxibustion academic organization in China and one of members of World 
Federation of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Societies. Liaoning Acupuncture and 
Moxibustion Society is directly subordinate to China Association for Acupuncture and 
Moxibustion as a Grade I academic organization of Liaoning Province. 
Articles of the society regulates that senior members of the society may be those who have 
chief physician, professor, research fellow or corresponding professional title, high academic 
prestige, or have be engaged in the circle for more than 30 years and have got remarkable 
achievement and important contribution in acupuncture and moxibustion field, furthermore 
can keep membership in the society for a long time, love and support work of the society and 
can implement obligations of senior member. 
[The petitioner] is a senior member with 21 years membership at China Association for 
Acupuncture and Moxibustion. 
The preceding certificate does not include an address, telephone number, or any other information 
through which the Liaoning Acupuncture and Moxibustion Society or the China Association for 
Acupuncture and Moxibustion may be contacted. Further, we cannot conclude that attaining a 
particular professional title, academic success, or a certain length of experience are tantamount to 
outstanding achievements. Moreover, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
Page 6 
specify what constitutes "remarkable achievement" or an "important contribution" as indicated in the 
society's articles. Finally, we note that the preceding certificate was unaccompanied by supporting 
evidence in the form of the actual articles of the Liaoning Acupuncture and Moxibustion Society. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the "Apoplexy Recovery Professional Committee of 
Chinese Medicine Society of Liaoning Province" stating: 
Liaoning Apoplexy Recovery Society is the most authoritative academic organization of 
apoplexy recovery in Liaoning Province. Our society has made great effort on recovery of 
paralytic and gained many achievements. 
[The petitioner] is the member of council of Liaoning Apoplexy Recovery Professional 
Committee. He has rich clinical experience for many years, obtained lots of achievements 
and won the respect from other members. 
The preceding certificate does not include an address, telephone number, or any other information 
through which the organization may be contacted. The petitioner also submitted a "Work 
Certificate" identifying him as a member of the Inventors' Association of the City of Shenyang. The 
record, however, does not include evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing the admission 
requirements for the Inventors Association of the City of Shenyang or the Liaoning Apoplexy 
Recovery Professional Committee. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in theJield. 
The petitioner submitted documentation from the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
indicating that he filed a provisional patent application in 2001. The petitioner also submitted 
documentation from the German Patent and Trademark Office reflecting that he published patent 
applications in 2002 and 2004. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has actually been 
granted a patent for the preceding inventions. The petitioner also submitted evidence from the State 
Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China reflecting that he holds a utility model 
patent for his "Chinese herb fomenter treatment bags." The grant of a patent demonstrates only that 
an invention is original. This office has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a 
track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New 
York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 221 n. 7, (Comrnr. 1998). Rather, the significance of 
the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. In this case, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has licensed or successfully marketed his inventions. On appeal, the 
petitioner acknowledges this fact stating: "I have not granted license to any manufacturer to mass 
production of my invention yet." Thus, the impact of the petitioner's inventions in his field is not 
documented in the record. Rather than submitting evidence demonstrating that his inventions have 
already had a significant impact in the medical field, the petitioner instead comments on his future 
aspirations for their commercialization. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that his 
inventions equate to original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
Aside from evidence of his Chinese patent and U.S. and German patent applications, the petitioner 
submitted two letters of recommendation in support of the petition. Neither of these letters includes 
an address, telephone number, or any other information through which their authors may be 
contacted. 
The letter co-written by and President and Vice President of the Liaoning 
Institute of Stroke Rehabilitation, states: 
[The petitioner] is one of members in the council of our Liaoning Institute of Stroke 
Rehabilitation. For his experienced and excellent medical skills, he receives respects from 
other members in our institute. 
He has made a huge achievement in his 30 years of clinical work and treated around 50,000 
cases. Many of them were with difficult symptoms. The effect of his treatments, especially 
against the sequela of stroke was rapid and outstanding. An example was a treatment for a 
male patient with Stroke. In the leg elevation test, the supine patient could generally elevate 
his illed thigh max. 7cm high. After the 15-minute-treatment with the treatment device that 
invented by [the petitioner], the patient achieved an elevation height of 37cm. Another 
example case was a female patient with chronic Migraine of 10 years history. After her new 
attack of Migraine that lasted one week without any effect of convening possible pain-killers 
in the maximal dose, she consulted the medical help from [the petitioner]. Through 15 
minutes' treatment with the same treatment device, all complaints of her Migraine 
disappeared. During the routine treatment work, [the petitioner] could often meet similar 
patients. 
In his 30 years of clinical work, [the petitioner] did not concern his earnings and medical 
rank and set patients in his first place. In his belief, the happiest is to release the complaint of 
patients. As one of major leaders, in the latest re-election of our Institute, [the petitioner] 
was supported by the institute members to become the new president. Disappointedly, he 
refused and insisted on his busy treatment work. 
The letter from 
 Associate President and Chief Secretary of the "Liaoning Association of 
China Association of Zhenjiu," and a professor at Liaoning Chinese Medicine University, states: 
[The petitioner], who served as associate director doctor in No. 6 Hospital of Shenyang, is a 
21 years, old member in the China Association of Zhenjiu. He has worked more than 30 
years in the clinical treatment and performed gorgeously with acupuncture against 
Apoplectic Sequelae and Migraine. He has treated personally around 50,000 of such patients 
during his work. He is one of extreme excellent senior members in our association. 
We can freshly recall, in the summer of 2004, a patient named 
 who has been in the 
post-traumatic coma for nearly 2 months, came back to his full orientations through [the 
petitioner's] careful treatment. This case strongly indicates that [the petitioner] grasps high- 
level treatment skills and experience. The results of many cases in his 30-year-treatment 
were regarded as marvels. Therefore, he is honorably respected by his working colleagues, 
patients and their families. 
The most valuable achievement in [the petitioner's] clinical work is his inventions of 
treatment devices. 
 These treatment devices are worth of high attention. 
 Although the 
treatment devices have not yet become popular and widely applied in the clinical treatment, I 
can assert, they would surely have brilliant prospects. Particularly, "the Device for Treating 
Stroke and Migraine" has its unique astonishing effect. We are looking forward for the 
success of [the petitioner's] inventions. 
The examples pertaining to the petitioner's treatment methodologies are inherently anecdotal, and are 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner has made original scientific contributions that have 
significantly influenced or impacted' his field. 
 asserts that the petitioner's 
treatment devices "have brilliant prospects" rather than addressing how his inventions already 
qualify as original contributions of major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition 
under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
his immediate colleagues, the record does not include evidence showing that his work constitutes 
original contributions of major significance in his field consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's 
influence on others in the medical field nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field 
has significantly changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of support limited to the petitioner's immediate colleagues are not sufficient to 
demonstrate that he meets this criterion. The opinions of one's professional contacts, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's professional contacts is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and 
how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written 
by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that 
Page 9 
one would expect of a medical practitioner or an inventor who has sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he included references from ' and- 
-' but his initial submission included only their e-mail addresses and telephone 
numbers rather than letters of support from them discussing the medical effectiveness of his 
inventions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly 
acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude 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. 
At issue for thls criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
With regard to the petitioner's work at the Liaoning Institute of Stroke Rehabilitation and the No. 6 
Hospital of Shenyang, there is no evidence showing that they have distinguished reputations. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's role was leading or critical for the Institute 
or the hospital. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him from 
the other doctors on staff, let alone the organizations' top management. For example, the petitioner has 
not submitted a personnel chart for the preceding institutions showing where his position fell within 
their organizational hierarchies. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that 
he was responsible for the success or standing of the Liaoning Institute of Stroke Rehabilitation or the 
No. 6 Hospital of Shenyang to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that 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 national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires 
"clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. 
Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged 
commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she 
intends to continue his or her work in the United States." In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted his "Prospective Working Plan in the U.S." detailing future plans 
for his career. We find that the petitioner's Prospective Working Plan, along with the 
aforementioned October 13, 2007 letter from the President of Yankee Invention Exposition, Inc., are 
adequate to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Therefore, we withdraw the director's 
finding regarding this issue. 
Nevertheless, 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 a 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.