dismissed EB-1A Case: Orthopedic Surgery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 12, 2024 In Re: 34750890 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery, seeks classification as an 
individual 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 concluded that the Petitioner had not established that he will continue working in 
his area of expertise in the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C .F.R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
IT. ANALYSTS 
The record indicates the Petitioner received a Ph.D. in China in 2007, after previously completing 
medical school. The Petitioner worked as a surgeon at while also 
publishing several scholarly articles and inventing patented technology. He then became associate 
chief physician in the Orthopedics Department at China. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pertaining to judging and scholarly 
articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other four claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied two criteria. 
We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Initially, the Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership, service on committees, or recommendation 
for membership in nine associations. The Petitioner submitted excerpts from the constitutions of three of 
the associations: the Shanghai Association of Chinese Integrative Medicine (SACIM); the China 
Association for Disaster & Emergency Rescue Medicine (CAD ERM); and the China Medicine Education 
2 
Association (CMEA). The Petitioner did not submit information about the membership requirements of 
the other six named associations. 
The SACIM's constitution indicates that prospective members must "[a]chieve certain achievements in 
the fields of medical treatment, teaching, scientific researcher, management and other disciplines of 
integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine." The same document indicates that the admission 
of new members must be "[a ]pproved by the Organization Committee of the Council." 
The CAD ERM' s constitution states: 
Scientific and technical personnel, managers, and people from all walks of life who are 
engaged in emergency and medical rescue work and have the technical title of physician, 
assistant physician ( or equivalent), as well as people from all walks of life who support 
medical rescue work, can apply to become individual members of this association. 
The document also indicates that prospective members must "[h]]ave a certain influence in the 
association's business (industry, discipline) field" (sic), and that membership applications are 
"[ d]iscussed and approved by an organization approved by the Standing Council." 
The CMEA' s constitution indicates that membership is open to "[p]]ractitioners of medicine, pharmacy 
and medical education, relevant experts and scholars" who "[h]ave certain influence and appeal within 
the business scope of the Association." Membership applications are "[d]iscussed and approved by the 
Standing Council of the Association or its authorized agencies." The only specified requirements for 
Council membership are membership in the CMEA and "a professional title of deputy senior or higher 
or ... certain administrative positions in the unit." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the initial evidence did not show 
that any of the listed associations have qualifying membership requirements. 
In response, the Petitioner resubmitted materials regarding the CMEA, CADERM, and SACIM, asserted 
that the Director did not consider the full implications of the submitted materials. For example, regarding 
the CMEA' s requirement that members must "[h ]ave certain influence and appeal within the business 
scope of the Association," the Petitioner stated that the Director "fails to recognize that ... attaining a 
'certain level of influence' in the field necessitates making outstanding achievements in the field." 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not established that "certain achievements" 
or "influence" "are considered analogous to outstanding achievements." The Director also concluded 
that the Petitioner had not shown that national or international experts judge membership applications for 
the specified associations as required to meet the criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director "does not disclose the reason why the USCIS (U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services) remains unpersuaded," and "should explain the reasons why 
USCIS is not exercising discretion in favor of the [Petitioner]." But the Director adequately explained 
that the submitted membership materials do not show that the associations require a level of achievement 
commensurate with what the regulation requires. The Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof, has not 
established that "attaining a 'certain level of influence' in the field necessitates making outstanding 
3 
achievements in the field." Requiring "achievements" is not the same as requmng "outstanding 
achievements," because not every achievement rises to the level ofbeing outstanding. Also, the Petitioner 
did not establish that nationally or internationally recognized experts make membership decisions, as the 
regulation requires. 
The membership information in the record is not sufficiently detailed to establish that the CMEA, 
CAD ERM, and SACIM require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields as required by the regulation. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of 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 fieldfor which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of online articles from Sina, Ifeng, and Sohu, detailing his career and 
describing his routine, with the example of a patient whose spinal condition caused numbness. The lfeng 
and Sohu articles both include disclaimers. Ifeng' s disclaimer indicates that the content was "uploaded 
and posted by the user of ... a social media platform." Sohu's disclaimer reads: "The views in this article 
only represent the author's own. Sohn is an information publishing platform and Sohn only provides 
information storage space services." The Sina article includes no such disclaimer, ending with two 
credits: "Source: News Express" and the name of the "Editor in charge." The Petitioner initially asserted 
that the named editor is the author of the article, but the credit is ambiguous. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the articles appear to be promotional materials that 
appeared on user-edited "web portals," rather than media coverage about the Petitioner. The Director 
also noted that the articles do not identify their respective authors as the regulation requires. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: "Sina News is a major media outlet in China," rather than a site that 
posts user-submitted content. The Petitioner does not claim, on appeal, that any other submitted article 
satisfies the regulatory requirements for the criterion. 
The Petitioner asserts: "The [Sina] article ... was authored and reviewed by news professionals," and 
"was reviewed by the Editor in Charge." In the English translation, the editor's name and title appear at 
the end of the article without further context or elaboration. The information does not reveal whether the 
individual is an editor at Sina or at News Express. The Petitioner does not cite to any record information 
about "News Express," the identified source of the article, to show that it is staffed by "news 
professionals." Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight. Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). Without background 
information about "News Express," we are left with an effectively anonymous article, and insufficient 
information as to how this article came to be published on Sina's website. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) also requires submission of "any necessary translation." The 
Petitioner submitted English translations of the Chinese-language articles, along with translator's 
certifications for the articles as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), including the attestation "I have made 
4 
the attached translations." But several anomalies lead us to question whether the translation certifications 
actually apply to the translated materials to which the Petitioner attached them. The certifications are 
dated November 20, 2022, nearly a year before the publication dates of the submitted articles in October 
2023. The certifications do not identify the materials translated, instead referring generically to "the 
attached translations." Also, markings printed on the English versions of the Sina and Ifeng articles show 
that they are machine translations, automatically generated by Google Translate rather than prepared by 
a human translator. 
For the above reasons, the Sina article does not meet all the regulatory requirements. As noted above, the 
Petitioner does not claim on appeal that the other previously submitted articles meet the regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must first establish that the individual has performed in a leading or 
critical role for an organization, establishment, or a division or department of an organization or 
establishment. For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the person is (or was) a leader within 
the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. For a critical role, the evidence 
must establish that the person has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of 
the activities of the organization or establishment or those of a division or department thereof. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the person's leading or critical role 
can be particularly helpful in making this determination, so long as the letters contain detailed and 
probative information that specifically addresses how the person's role for the organization, 
establishment, division, or department was leading or critical. Id. Evidence of experience must consist 
ofletters from employers. Id., citing 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l). 
After a petitioner establishes the leading or critical nature of the person's role, USCIS then determines 
whether the organization or establishment, or the department or division for which the person holds or 
held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished reputation. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). 
In this instance, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met his burden of proof to establish 
that his roles were leading or critical. 
The Petitioner initially sought to satisfy this criterion through documentation of his various professional 
activities. In the RFE, the Director stated that the submitted evidence did not show that the Petitioner's 
roles were leading or critical for The Director noted that 
several of the documents submitted under this criterion did not appear to relate to either of those hospitals. 
The Director stated: "the petitioner may submit ... [l]etters from current or former employer(s) or 
trainer(s) with personal knowledge of the significance of the petitioner's leading or critical role." The 
Director also stated that, if such letters "are unavailable, the petitioner may submit ... [ d]ocumentary 
evidence to demonstrate how the petitioner's role was/is leading or critical." The Petitioner responded 
5 
by submitting copies ofpreviously submitted materials and new documents. The Petitioner did not submit 
employers' letters. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's evidence, but stated: "USCIS considers 
reference letters from current or former employers to be primary evidence under this criterion," and the 
Petitioner had not submitted such letters. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the regulations do not require the submission of employers' letters 
to the exclusion of all other evidence. The Petitioner notes that, in the RFE, the Director specified other 
types of evidence that the Petitioner could submit if employers' letters were not available. 
We agree with the Petitioner that the Director, in the RFE, indicated that other evidence would be 
acceptable in the absence of employers' letters. We also agree with the Petitioner that the absence of such 
letters, by itself, does not in all cases prevent a petitioner from satisfying the requirements ofthis criterion. 
Nevertheless, without such letters, the burden remains on the Petitioner to establish that his roles were 
leading or critical. 
Also, the Director did not stop at the conclusion that the Petitioner had not submitted employers' letters. 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner's evidence is not sufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden 
of proof We agree, as explained below. 
The Petitioner asserted that he meets the requirements of this criterion through his former position as a 
spine surgeon at I Iand his current role as associate chief surgeon in the 
Spine Surgery Department of I I In his initial statement, the Petitioner cited his 
"extensive research work" and "significant number of clinical tasks." The Petitioner added that he "has 
also represented I in external affairs. As a representative ofl Ihe served 
as the Vice President o The Petitioner further pointed to 
his participation at academic conferences, assessment of resident physicians, and "the compilation of [a] 
textbook." 
As noted above, statements in a brief such as the Petitioner's introductory statement are not evidence, and 
therefore we tum to the supporting evidence submitted with that statement. The Petitioner submitted 
documents relating to his clinical and educational work, showing, for example, that he holds the title 
"associate chief physician"; edited a textbook; and conducted evaluation examinations for resident 
physicians. The Petitioner stated that he "undertook extensive research work" and "a significant number 
of clinical tasks," and "also represented in external affairs." The Petitioner stated that 
these activities demonstrate his "leading and critical role at 
but did not explain how this was so beyond pointing to the activities. 
The Petitioner documented his invitations to participate in several medical conferences, and asserted that 
these invitations show "that he is widely recognized in the field of orthopedic spine surgery." Recognition 
is a factor to consider in the final merits determination. The Petitioner did not explain how these 
conference invitations demonstrate a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a 
distinguished reputation. 
6 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner stated that his "critical role inl lean be reflected in 
two major as ects: his position as the Vice President of on behalf of 
and his si nificant contributions to medical treatment m the Department of 
Orthopedics, _____ 
The Petitioner's response did not include any letters attesting to the leading or critical nature of his roles. 
The Petitioner submitted materials relating to his vice presidency ofl I He did not claim thatl I 
has a distinguished reputation in its own right. Rather, he asserted that he held this title "on behalf of 
which is about 600 miles or 1,000 kilometers northeast ofl I The materials do 
not address how the Petitioner's position atl Iwas leading or critical for I 
The Petitioner resubmitted medical records and other materials intended to show his "contributions to 
daily medical treatment." The submitted materials show the Petitioner's active involvement in patient 
treatment and academic discourse, but without further context they do not suffice to demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's role at I I was not only productive and helpful, but also leading or critical. 
The title of associate chief physician may show a leading role within the context of the Orthopedics 
Department, depending on the duties, but then the Petitioner would need to establish that department's 
distinguished reputation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(1). 
The Petitioner repeated the assertion that, by attending academic conferences, he "represented __ 
I I in external affairs." Materials from the conferences do not indicate that the Petitioner was invited 
to participate as a representative of I 
The Director concluded the submitted documents "merely demonstrate that [the Petitioner has] been 
active in [his] field." The Director also stated that, without further context, "USCIS is unable to evaluate 
the informational materials." 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the previously "submitted material ... clearly demonstrated how 
his performance in the role was critical." The Petitioner repeats and expands upon prior arguments about 
"his position as the Vice President ofl I on behalf ofl I 
... and his significant contributions to medical treatment [ atl I The Petitioner asserts 
that "[h]]is high volume of successful operations and effective team leadership have contributed to the 
hospital's reputation for excellence." 
The Petitioner has not satisfactory explainedhow his work at was critical for 
The assertion that he was at because appointed him to the position does not 
suffice in this regard. 
In terms of patient care atl Ithe Petitioner held a leadership position below the top rank 
within the Orthopedics Department. The Petitioner has provided institutional information about the 
hospital as a whole, but has not demonstrated that the Orthopedics Department has a distinguished 
reputation in its own right. The evidence is ambiguous as to whether the Petitioner's role in patient care 
was particularly critical within the staffing structure that included many other physicians and surgeons. 
7 
The Petitioner has maintained throughout this proceeding that the evidence illustrates his leading or 
critical roles, but, as noted above, statements in the appellate brief are not evidence. Matter of S-M-, 
22 I&N Dec. at 51. 
The incomplete evidence relating to the Petitioner's various roles is not sufficient to meet his burden of 
proof to satisfy the requirements of the 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). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of "Income Tax Queries" showing the Petitioner's "Total Income" from 
January 2020 to June 2023. The Petitioner stated that he also submitted "payment records of individual 
income" that "corroborate [the] income statement," but the "Payment Record[s] oflndividual Income" 
show figures that do not match the totals on the income tax queries: 
Year Total Income Total Tax Declared Payment Record 
2020 ¥691,699 ¥71,616 ¥95,203 
2021 1,078,366 164,843 193,377 
2022 927,014 110,912 254,470 (2022-23 combined) 
2023 815,131 138,754 
The Petitioner did not explain why, or even acknowledge that, the figures on the two sets of documents 
do not match. 
The payment records indicate that the Petitioner received "Salary Income" and, separately, 
"Remuneration for Personal Services." 
The Petitioner cited statistics from Sala,y Explorer showing that the 2024 average salary for a 
"doctor/physician" in China is ¥811,000, with a range between ¥303,600 and ¥1,392,000. The printout 
indicates: "The provided figure represents the median compensation that encompasses housing, 
transportation, and other perks. The salaries within the Doctor/Physician domain in China exhibit 
significant discrepancies across various professions." The printout also referred to "the salaries listed 
below" for specific medical specialties, but the Petitioner did not submit that information. 
The Petitioner also submitted a printout from Comparably, showing the average salary for a "spine 
surgeon" in the United States. This information does not apply in this proceeding, because the Petitioner 
has worked exclusively in China. We evaluate persons working outside of the United States based on the 
wage statistics or comparable evidence relevant to the applicable work location, rather than by converting 
the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United 
States. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the submitted evidence was not sufficient, because it did not "identify 
the source of income," and because the totals shown on the payment records of individual income "are 
actually less than [the salaries of] other physicians in his native country." The Director requested more 
specific and complete information, to establish both the Petitioner's remuneration and reliable 
comparative figures. 
8 
In response, the Petitioner provides updated figures, showing that he earned ¥1,635,070 in 2023. The 
Petitioner suggests that the Director misinterpreted the prior partial-year figures as representing a full 
year's remuneration. The 2023 figures, more detailed than what the Petitioner submitted for 2020-22, 
identify 13 different sources of "General Labor Remuneration," "Normal Wage and Salary," and "Other 
Non-Discontinuous Labor Remuneration." 
The Petitioner resubmitted the comparative data from Salary Explorer, along with figures from other 
sources. The Economic Research Institute stated that the average "Medical Doctor Salary in China" is 
¥717,669 per year, plus an "Average Bonus" of ¥29,568. Figures from Glassdoor show a range from 
¥200,000 to ¥500,000, with an average of ¥470,000, for "Physicians." A printout from World Salaries 
indicated: "A Doctor working in China will typically earn around 836,500 CNY per year," with figures 
ranging from ¥433,800 to ¥1,283,600. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had documented "several income streams from 
various organizations" and had not shown how much of his income was for his work as a spine surgeon. 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the comparative salary figures for 
"doctors" and "physicians" accurately reflect the average remuneration of spine surgeons. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "It is unreasonable for the reviewing officer to question whether the 
salary of a spine surgeon from a hospital is actually for performing spine surgeries. As a specialist in 
spine surgery, the petitioner's income is undoubtedly from his medical work." Among the 13 identified 
payment sources in the RFE response are several hospitals, but also the 
I I and the I I The Petitioner did not document that these 
entities paid him for performing spinal surgeries. The Petitioner also had administrative duties, such as 
his vice presidency ofl IThe burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish the circumstances of 
his remuneration, and the Petitioner's unsupported assertion that all his income must, by definition, have 
come from performing spinal surgery has no evidentiary weight. 
Regarding the salary data, the Petitioner asserts that, "as a spine surgeon, [the Petitioner] is unequivocally 
a medical doctor." There are numerous medical specialties, and the burden is on the Petitioner to establish 
that the submitted salary figures include and reflect salaries paid to surgeons. The Petitioner's prior 
submission of Comparably salary data specifically for "spine surgeons" establishes that statistics are 
gathered with that level of specificity. 
Also, the Glassdoor printout for "Physicians" includes this passage: "Some related job titles are Doctor 
Salaries with median pay of CN¥19,926, Medical Doctor Salaries with median pay of CN¥686,871." 
This documented distinction between "physicians" and "medical doctors," with widely disparate median 
pay figures, is further evidence that relevant statistics are not compiled under one comprehensive heading. 
The Petitioner has submitted inconsistent figures relating to his own remuneration, and has not shown 
that the salary statistics he submitted present an accurate average or range of salaries for spine surgeons 
in China. Therefore, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proofrelating 
to this regulatory criterion. 
9 
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof to 
satisfy the requirements of at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, we reserve 
the separate issue of whether the Petitioner has established that he intends to continue in his area of 
expertise in the United States. 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 lesser 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 conclusion 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 has not shown a degree of recognition of his work that 
indicates the required sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While the Petitioner has submitted hundreds of pages of documentation, the submitted evidence provides 
an incomplete picture of his medical career to allow us to fully assess whether he is one of a small percent 
at the top of his field. For example, the record contains no direct evidence of his medical degree to show 
the year of issuance and give a full picture of the length of his career; the only reference to his education 
appears in a submitted article. As another example of an ambiguous or unsupported claim, the 
introductory brief submitted with the petition indicates that the Petitioner "has been working in . . . 
orthopedic spine surgery for decades," but the record does not document activity in the specific field 
before 2012, at most 12 years before the petition's January 2024 filing date. 
The materials also lack complete details of his duties with his former and current employers. The 
materials refer to him as a surgeon, but do not show how much time he spends on research, administrative 
duties, supervision of subordinates and students, and other tasks that may result from his position at a 
university-affiliated hospital. 2018 certificates from the I Irefer to 
the Petitioner with the title "Professor," a title that also appears in a press release from I 
People's Government. The record provides only fragmentary information about the nature of the 
Petitioner's duties as vice president ofl I 
The Petitioner has made claims about the significance of much of the evidence, such as his invitations to 
participate in conferences, which lack sufficient evidentiary support. The evidence indicates a successful 
10 
I 
and productive career, but lacks sufficient context to show that the Petitioner has reached the small 
percentage at the top of his field. 
The Petitioner has submitted three articles about his career, but the circumstances of their publication are 
not fully documented and leave questions. All were published within days of one another in late October 
2023, shortly before the preparation and filing of the petition. Two of them - both published in the 
"Finance" or "Business" sections of the respective publications - include disclaimers indicating the 
articles were submitted by unidentified users. 
The three articles are similar in tone, with overlapping details such as the Petitioner's travel to Germany, 
his involvement in China's "863 Program," and his treatment of a patient experiencing numbness from 
spondylosis. The translations of all three articles sometimes use identical language, such as the statement 
that the Petitioner completes "an average of more than 500 spinal surgeries every year." The similarities 
in the three articles, together with their almost simultaneous publication, are consistent with common 
authorship or origin from a common source. Cf Hamal v. US. Dep 't of Homeland Security, No. 19-
2534, slip op. at 8, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (holding that identical language in submitted letters 
"suggests that the letters were all prepared by the same person and calls into question the persuasive value 
of the letters' content"). The publication of these three similar articles shortly before the petition's filing 
date does not show a broader history of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11