dismissed EB-1A Case: Oncology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8396610 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an oncologist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The Director also found that the Petitioner had not established that she would be able to continue working 
in the field in the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a~ physician of the Department of Medical Oncology at~I ---~I Hospital, a 
teaching hospital ofl__JUniversity inl O I China. 
A. Translations 
Apart from the specific requirements relating to various evidentiary criteria discussed below, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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." The Petitioner's initial submission included one certification, attesting 
collectively to every translated document in the record. The certification, however, did not list or describe 
the translated documents. The Director found that such a blanket certification is not satisfactory; it does 
not establish a connection between the certification and any particular translation in the record. 
The Director raised this issue in a request for evidence, but the Petitioner's response included new, 
specific certifications for only a few documents in the record. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have met seven criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
2 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, numbered (iv) and (vi). On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she also meets two other criteria, numbered (iii) and (ix). The Petitioner does 
not contest the Director's conclusions regarding the criteria numbered (ii), (v), and (viii), and therefore 
we consider those issues to be abandoned. 1 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has 
met only two criteria, numbered (iv) and (vi). Below, we explain our findings regarding the two 
criteria discussed on appeal. 
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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner states that she "and her work in Oncology have been published in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media outlets." This claim deviates from the wording of the regulation, 
which requires the published material to be about the Petitioner. Some of the submitted articles are by 
the Petitioner, rather than about her. For example, the Petitioner wrote an article in the China Medical 
Tribune, describing studies of various cancer drugs. A number of these articles are essentially scholarly 
articles, which fall under a different criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)) that the Petitioner has satisfied. 
Several other articles, many lacking the required author credit, reported on medical conferences, 
summarizing presentations made by the Petitioner and other researchers. These articles are not about the 
Petitioner; they are about the findings that resulted from research that the Petitioner ( and others) 
conducted. 
An article in the China Medical Tribune, again with no byline author credit, reported on the establishment 
ofthtj I sarcoma Clinical Center. The article included interviews with the Petitioner and another 
official, who answered questions about the Center and the types of cancers to be treated there. As above, 
the Petitioner is a quoted source of information, but the article is not about her. 
An article from the Xinmin Evening News has an author credit, but, like the other articles, is not about the 
Petitioner. Instead, the article features an interview with the Petitioner, who discusses the prevention, 
diagnosis, and treatment of lymphoma. A brief biographical sketch at the end of the article lists the 
Petitioner's credentials, but this does not mean that the article constitutes published material about the 
Petitioner. 
1 See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att); Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 
F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. l998);seealsoHristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an article published in February 2019, four months after the Petitioner 
filed the petition. This evidence cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the filing date. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), which requires every petitioner to meet all eligibility requirements as of the time of filing. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
A letter froml I Hospital lists the following remuneration paid to the Petitioner (some figures 
are identified as approximations): 
Base Salary 
Bonus and Remuneration 
Total Income 
2015 
¥70,000 
530,000 
600,000 
2016 
¥75,000 
625,000 
700,000 
2017 
¥80,000 
720,000 
800,000 
Beyond her hospital salary, income certificates fro~ !Human Resources indicate that the 
Petitioner received income for "services externally dispatched by our company," such as "lecture fee, 
consultation fee, etc.," in the following amounts: 
2015 2016 2017 
¥822,040 ¥931,030 ¥1,026,000 
Tax documents identify 'Taxable income" originating from I I Hospital and several 
pharmaceutical companies: 
2015 2016 2017 
I Hospital ¥227,704.68 ¥405,160.13 ¥566,349.69 
Other sources 41,087.17 91,962.13 44,577.16 
Total Income 268,791.85 437,793.17 610,926.85 
The Director found the above figures to be inconsistent, and therefore lacking in credibility. On appeal, 
the Petitioner disputes this conclusion, stating that the Director "failed to take China's tax law system and 
medical income system into account." The Petitioner also asserts that the income from I O J 
Human Resources is separate from the income froml I Hospital. The Petitioner, however, does 
not adequately explain why the 'Taxable Income" specifically attributed tol I does not 
match the figures on the letter from that hospital. 
The Petitioner asserts that her "monthly wages and salaries from I O I Hospital in 2017 was 
approximately RMB 66,666," but, looking at the hospital payments on the 2017 tax documents, even if 
we add the ¥566,349.69 in "Taxable income" to the ¥130,094.64 listed as "Paid-in tax amount" (which 
should not be necessary, as "taxable income" is not the same as "after-tax income"), those two amounts 
still add up to only ¥696,444.33, nearly ¥100,000 less than the claimed figure of¥800,000 for the year. 
The Petitioner has not credibly reconciled the figures on the different documents. 
4 
Apart from the inconsistencies, the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient basis for comparison to show 
that her remuneration for services as a director physician is significantly high in relation to other director 
physicians. The Petitioner submits job announcements for three oncologist positions in China. The two 
highest-paying positions offer ¥15,000-20,000 per month, which annualizes to ¥180,000-240,000 per 
year. A job announcement for a director physician offers ¥150,000-200,000 per year. The Petitioner did 
not establish that the amounts in these four job announcements are representative of the Petitioner's 
occupation. Three of the announced positions are for oncologists without the added responsibilities of a 
director physician, and the one director physician position is for an ophthalmologist rather than an 
oncologist. 
Furthermore, the amounts in the job announcements are considerably lower than the Petitioner's total 
annual income, but much higher than her base salary, which accounts for less than 11 % of her stated 
hospital earnings (according to the letter from the hospital). The Petitioner submits excerpts from a 2013 
survey, indicating that "monthly bonuses paid to nurses and physicians on average make up nearly 45% 
of their reported incomes," with that figure ranging from 0% to 80%. The report did not discuss the bonus 
structure for director physicians. The report indicated that "[b ]onuses accounted for at least half of 21 
managers' incomes," but there is no accompanying breakdown of data. 
The Petitioner also submits a survey report from the Chinese Medical Doctor Association, indicating that 
physicians at "the senior level" reported an average annual income of¥107,813.18. The document does 
not clarify whether this amount reflects total income or base salary, and does not differentiate between 
director physicians and doctors with entirely clinical responsibilities. 
Furthermore, the record shows that the Petitioner derives income from multiple sources. Comparing this 
aggregate income with any single source ofremuneration would, therefore, tend to be lopsided rather than 
an even one-to-one comparison. 
The Petitioner provides salary data from the U.S. Department of Labor, but these figures concern 
physicians in the United States, not director physicians in China, and therefore the statistics do not apply 
to the case at hand. 
For the above reasons, the evidence submitted does not consistently establish the amount the Petitioner 
earns, or suffice to establish how her total compensation compares with that of other director physician 
oncologists in China. 
C. Intended Employment in the United States 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act requires that the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of claimed extraordinary ability. The Director found that the Petitioner has not 
established her ability to practice medicine in the United States. 
5 
Because the Petitioner has not met the threshold criteria for eligibility as an alien of extraordinary 
ability, discussion of this separate issue cannot change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we 
reserve this issue. 2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
appears to have authority over one department of a major hospital in Shanghai, but the record does not 
include the extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim required by section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
G