dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

U.S. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
EAC 06 013 53001 
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: 
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. 
\J 
%be* P. Wiernann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
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 
with a finding of fraud and material misrepresentation. 
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 in 
the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualie for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On April 24, 2008, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2@)(16)(i), this office issued a notice 
advising the petitioner of derogatory information indicating that he submitted a falsified recommendation 
letter in support of his petition. The notice specifically observed that the petitioner signed the Form 1-140, 
thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true 
and correct." 
Regarding the fraudulent submission, the AAO's notice stated: 
[Ylou submitted a January 8,2007 letter of support allegedly issued by- 
The University. Based 
on irregularities found in the January 8,2007 letter, it was submitted to r verification. On 
April 9,2008, the AAO received a response from fating: "I must admit that the letter you 
have FAXed for my examination is not my own. I did send a recommendation at an earlier stage in 
[the petitioner's] application process, but this follow-up letter is a forgery." By submitting a falsified 
recommendation letter, it appears you have sought to obtain a visa by fiaud and willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. 
With regard to the fraudulent recommendation letter, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve 
any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 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 petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. 
If you choose to contest the AAO's finding, you must offer independent and objective evidence from 
credible sources addressing, explaining, and rebutting the discrepancies discussed above. If you do 
not submit such evidence within the allotted thirty-day period, the AAO will dismiss your appeal. 
Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(5), the petitioner was also requested to submit the original of 
a September 25,2005 "Appointment Letter" inviting him to join the editorial committee of Natural Products 
Research and Development. In addition to the original document, the petitioner was requested to submit 
contact information for the author of the appointment letter. 
In accordance with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(5) and (16)(i), the petitioner was afforded 30 days 
(plus 3 days for mailing) in which to respond to the AAO's notice. In response, the petitioner submitted the 
Page 3 
original, unaltered September 25, 2005 appointment letter and contact information for its author. The 
petitioner also submitted an April 28, 2008 letter from present his attorney of record, who stated that one of 
his employees was responsible for the submission of the fraudulent letter.' The attorney of record provided 
the following explanation: 
JThe petitioner] denies any fraud and willful 
 . Based on communications between 
[the petitioner] an-, it is clear that 
 w recall sending the second letter of 
recommendation dated 1/8/07. He simply did not include in his original letter the following 
typewritten words: "I am regarded one of the nationally and internationally recognized experts in 
fields of research, and therefore qualified to comment on the requirements of these 
societies and their members." 
I also recall that when I was forwarded by e[-]mail ) support letter for comments in January 
2007, I was on a business trip in Shanghai and Guangzhou, China. I proposed that the letter, 
excellent though, would better contain a sentence indicating qualification to write about 
Over international long distance calls, I asked my assistant in NY (1) to write down or 
type in some suggested additional words on a photocopy of the letter to the above effect, and (2) to 
ask the writer, through our client, what he would think. 
Unfortunately, with the deadline for a eal a proaching, my assistant must have forgotten to relate 
the suggested additional sentence to 
 or [the petitioner]. As our file contains two versions 
of the letter, one with and one without the suggested additional typewritten words, my assistant must 
have mailed out the appeal with the wrong version of the letter by mistake, a mistake that I did not 
realize to have been made until I read your letter of 4/24/2008. 
We cannot ignore that counsel, rather than any unnamed assistant, signed the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
to the AAO, which was dated January 13, 2007 and filed on January 16, 2007.~ Counsel also signed the 
January 13, 2007 cover letter for the appellate submission and the accompanying appellate brief that cites the 
January 8, 2007 letter of support from - Further, there is no evidence that any other party 
was involved in the preparation and submission of the documentation submitted on appeal. For example, 
there is no affidavit from counsel's assistant, copies of e-mail records, or international long distance telephone 
records to corroborate counsel's assertions regarding the alteration ofs letter. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). 
The petitioner's response also included an April 29,2008 letter from tating: 
1 
 The present attorney of record has represented the petitioner only on appeal. 
2 
 Counsel's name and signature appear in the "Person Filing Appeal" section of the Form I-290B. A "UPS 2ND DAY 
AIR" shipping envelope in which the appellate submission was sent bears the address of counsel's Roslyn Heights, New 
York law office. 
Page 4 
In January of 2007 I was asked to prepare a second recommendation letter in support of an appeal on 
behalf of [the petitioner]. In cooperation with his law firm, SHENLAW, LLC, a letter of support was 
drafted. An early version of this letter contained a statement about my credentials that I did not wish 
to make. Accordingly, the statement was removed, and with absolute support for [the petitioner] I 
signed and submitted the letter dated January 8,2007. 
So it was with surprise and much dismay that I received the FAX . . . on April 8 of this year aslung 
that I verify a statement that had been obviously inserted with a typewriter onto my original letter, a 
statement similar to that which I had previously removed. My response . . . was to label the 
document a forgery, a response which I now regret as much too hastily submitted and terminology 
that is much too coarse. I now understand from Professor LC how 
this unfortunate mistake occurred. 
The April 29,2008 letter from-confirms that hs January 8,2007 recommendation letter submitted by 
the petitioner was altered. 
 Further, the explanation gven by 
 contradicts counsel's explanation 
regarding the petitioner's submission of the falsified letter. pecifically states that he reviewed an early 
version of the letter, that the statement about hs credentials was "removed" at his request, and only then did he 
sign the letter. In counsel's explanation, ". . . with the deadline for appeal approaching, my assistant must have 
forgotten to relate the suggested additional sentence to " However, since .xplained that he 
signed the letter only after the language in question had been removed, it is clear that the addition of the language 
occurred after -signed the letter. Clearly, CIS was not provided "the wrong version," but a version that 
was deliberately altered after 
 signed it. As discussed in the AAO's April 24, 2008 notice, it is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 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. at 591-92. 
Accordingly, we find that the above-noted inconsistencies, including counsel's signature on the Form I-290B and 
the cover letter for the appeal, both dated January 13, 2007, constitute significant evidence of a lack of credibility 
in the petitioner's claim that submission of the falsified letter was simply an unintended mistake that occurred 
while counsel was allegedly "on a business trip in . . . China" in January 2007. The evidence of record does not 
support that conclusion. 
The petitioner's response includes no independent and objective evidence to overcome the AAO's finding 
that he submitted a falsified letter of recommendation in support of the petition. In fact, the petitioner has not 
even provided a personal statement in response to the AAO's notice of derogatory information. The 
petitioner signed the Form 1-140 under penalty of perjury and attested that he is solely responsible for the 
submission of evidence with this petition. Only in response to the AAO's April 24, 2008 notice has the 
petitioner acknowledged submission of a letter misrepresenting credentials. Regarding the 
alteration of letter and its materiality to this proceeding, the misrepresentation of his credentials 
specifically relates to evidence submitted by the petitioner for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Specifically, the regulation calls for "[d]ocumentation 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." 
In addressing petitioner's membership in the American Phytopathological Society and the International 
Society for Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, the fraudulent alteration to January 8, 2007 
letter states: "I am regarded one of the nationally recognized experts ifields of research, 
and therefore qualified to comment on the requirements of these societies and their members." The 
fraudulent addition was an attempt to establish standing as a "recognized national or international 
expert in his discipline or field" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and thus establish that he 
was qualified to comment on the membership requirements of the American Phytopathological Society and 
the International Society for Molecular Plant-Microber Interactions. Accordingly, the addition of the altered 
language was clearly material to the adjudication of this petition. 
Section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, 
seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into 
the United States or other benefit provided under ths Act is inadmissible. 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which "tends to shut 
off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in a proper 
determination that he be excluded." Matter of S- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the altered letter from, the petitioner has sought to 
procure a benefit provided under the Act through fraud and willful misrepresentation of a material fact. 
Because the petitioner has failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and 
persuasively, our finding that he submitted falsified documentation in support of the petition, we affirm our 
finding of fraud. This finding of fraud shall be considered in any future proceeding where admissibility is an 
issue. 
Regarding the instant petition, the petitioner's failure to submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the preceding derogatory information seriously compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the 
remaining documentation. As stated above, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. The petitioner's arguments on appeal will be discussed below. 
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 ths 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, 
Page 6 
(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. 
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, 60898-99 (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. 9 204.5(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. § 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 accIaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 30, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a botanist. The record reflects that the petitioner has worked as a research professor for the 
Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, since 1985. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. Ej 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. Ej 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. Ej 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
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 the following: 
1. First Prize National Science and Technology Achievement Award from the State Education 
Commission of the People's Republic of China (June 1993). 
2. Second Prize National Excellent Science and Technology Book Award from the State News and 
Publishing Administration of the People's Republic of China (October 1990). 
3. Third Prize Sichuan Science and Technology Achievement Award from the People's Government 
of Sichuan Province (March 1990). 
Page 7 
4. Second Prize Science and Technology Achievement Award from the Chinese Academy of 
Sciences (October 1993). 
5. 2002 Scientific Examination and Exploration Award from the Sichuan Scientific Exploration 
Association. 
6. 2004 Scientific Examination and Exploration Award from the Sichuan Scientific Exploration 
Association. 
7. Third prize award certificate from the Wuhan Science and Technology Association (April 1985). 
8. Second Prize Science and Technology Achievement Award from the Sichuan Institute of Natural 
Resources (August 1995). 
9. Second Prize Science and Technology Award from the Science and Technology Commission of 
the Revolutionary Committee of Sichuan Province (August 1979). 
10. First Prize Science and Technology Achievement Award from the Sichuan Provincial People's 
Government (January 2006). 
Items 3 and 5 through 10 above reflect provincial or local recognition rather than national or international 
recognition. Further, with regard to item 10, the petitioner received this award subsequent to the petition's 
filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligbility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider 
this award in this proceeding. Regarding items 1 through 10 above, the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of ths criterion. 
mle the petitioner submitted copies of the regulations governing some of his prizes, the English language 
translations accompanying these documents were not certified. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any 
document containing foreign language submitted to CIS 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 this case, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence showing that his awards commanded national or international recognition beyond the 
presenting organizations consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For example, there is 
supporting evidence showing that the recipients of the preceding honors were announced in major media or in 
some other manner consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejeld for which classijication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
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. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted a September 20, 2006 letter from the American Phytopathological Society (APS) 
stating that he joined the society on August 22, 2005. The petitioner also submitted an October 2, 2006 letter 
welcoming him as a regular member of the International Society for Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 
(ISMPMI). The petitioner was admitted to membership in the ISMPMI subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's ISMPMI 
membership in this proceeding. While the record includes general information about the ISMPMI and the 
APS, there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that they 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted the January 8, 2007 letter from -stating: 
The first supplemental remark I am going to make is that [the petitioner] is a member of associations 
in his fields of endeavor that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. He is a member of the 
American Phytopathological Society (APS) and the International Society for Molecular Plant- 
Microbe Interactions (ISMPMI). I am regarded one of the nationally recognized experts in [the 
petitioner's] fields of research, and therefore qualified to comment on the requirements of these 
societies and their members. 
As discussed previously, the AAO sent the above letter to for verification. April 9, 
2008 response to the AAO specifically stated that the January 8, 2007 letter was "a forgery." On April 24, 
2008, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.2@)(16)(i), this office issued a notice advising the 
petitioner of derogatory information indicating that the January 8, 2007 letter from was fraudulent. 
In response, the petitioner submitted an April 29, 2008 letter from-confirming that his January 8, 
2007 recommendation letter was altered. Thus, the petitioner failed to submit independent and objective 
evidence to overcome the AAO's finding that the letter was falsified. As stated previously, doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Because of the 
fraudulent alteration, we cannot assign any weight to the statements in 
 letter. Nevertheless, his 
January 8, 2007 letter does not specifically identify the APS or the ISMPMI's membership requirements and 
- - 
there is no documentary evidence to support 
d 
assertion that the societies "require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognize national or international experts in their disciplines 
or  field^."^ 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)). Further, the AAO 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an 
opinion is in any way questionable, the AAO is not required to accept or may give less weight to that 
Nothing in the letters from-ndicates that he holds membership or serves in an executive capacity in the APS 
or the ISMPMI, therefore, it is not apparent how he is qualified to provide information regarding their specific 
membership requirements. 
Page 9 
evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). As the content of -~ 
letter was falsified and therefore fraudulent, the AAO is not required to accept the information provided in his 
letter. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifL as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.4 
The petitioner submitted video footage in the Swedish and Japanese languages allegedly showing scenes of the 
petitioner's fieldwork, him doing an interview, and him giving a speech. Ths documentary footage was 
unaccompanied by a certified English language translation as required by this regulatory criterion and the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence showing that the documentary footage was 
broadcast by major media outlets, that the programs aired nationally, or that they were otherwise distributed 
to a wide audience in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Further, the date 
that the video footage was broadcast was not provided as required by the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
On appeal, counsel states that an editorial authored by the petitioner in the January - April 1999 newsletter of the 
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, a 1997 abstract authored by hm entitled "Ethnobotany of 
Hongyuan nomads," and two books published in 2006 for which he authored material also relate to ths criterion. 
The preceding books were published subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed previously, a 
petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 9 5 103.2(b)(l), (1 2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the books published in 2006 in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the published material to be "about the 
alien" rather than written by the alien. The preceding materials authored by the petitioner are relevant to the 
"authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of specification for which classification is sought. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Waslzington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 10 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must 
be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard wouId 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). For example, evaluating the 
work of accomplished professors on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value than evaluating 
the work of students or one's coworkers. 
The petitioner submitted a September 12, 2006 letter from the Human Resource and Education Department, 
Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, stating: "[The petitioner] was a committee 
member of academic committee in Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CIB, CIS) 
and is committee member of Academic advisory commission of CIB, CAS." The English language 
translation of this letter was not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Further, the 
letter does not include a name, address, telephone number, or any other contact information. The petitioner 
has not established that his activity for these committees was tantamount to his participation as a judge of the 
work of others in h~s field. For example, the record lacks information regarding the nature of his duties as a 
committee member, the specific dates he served, the names of the individuals whose work he evaluated, and 
their level of expertise. 
The petitioner submitted a photocopy of a letter appointing him as a member of the editorial board of the 
journal Natural Products Research and Development effective September 25,2005. In response to the AAO's 
notice, the petitioner submitted the original September 25, 2005 appointment letter, a certified English 
language translation of the letter, contact information for its author, and general information about the journal. 
The record, however, does not include evidence showing the petitioner's participation as a judge of the work 
of others for this journal during the five-day period preceding the petition's September 30, 2005 filing date.5 
For example, the record lacks evidence showing the articles he evaluated for the journal and the dates of his 
performance of editorial services. We acknowledge the petitioner's September 25, 2005 appointment to the 
editorial board of Natural Products Research and Development, but there in no evidence demonstrating that 
he actually participated as a judge of the work of others in his capacity as an editorial board member prior to 
the petition's filing date. As discussed previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner submitted documents entitled "Sichuan Branch of the Chinese medicine industry's the 
association confirmation letter" (dated "2006/09/12") and "Sichuan Branch of the Chinese medicine industry 
in the development of the pharmaceutical industry association Program (2) (draft) (2006-3-30)." These 
5 
 According to the contact information submitted by the petitioner, the office for this Chinese professional journal is 
located in Chengdu, China. The record reflects that the petitioner entered the United States on June 4, 2005 and was 
residing in Edison, New Jersey at the time of his appointment to the journal's editorial board. 
Page 11 
documents list the petitioner's name among those of the "expert direction committee members." The English 
language translations of these documents were not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.2(b)(3). Further, the confirmation letter does not include an address, telephone number, or any other 
contact information. Nevertheless, the dates of the preceding documents indicate that the petitioner's 
involvement commenced subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed previously, a petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. Even if the petitioner were to establish his participation as of September 30, 2005, he has not established 
that his activity for this committee was tantamount to his participation as a judge of the work of others in his 
field. For example, the record lacks information regarding the nature of his duties as a committee member, 
the specific dates he served, the names of the individuals whose work he evaluated, and their level of 
expertise. 
The petitioner submitted an August 18, 2005 letter of appointment from the-scientific and 
Technology Consulting Services Company, Ltd., naming him director of the company's academic committee 
for a period of five years. This letter was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Further, the letter does not include a name, address, 
telephone number, or any other contact information. The petitioner has not established that his activity as 
director was tantamount to his participation as a judge of the work of others in hs field. For example, the record 
lacks information regarding the nature of his duties as director, the names of the individuals whose work he 
evaluated, and their level of expertise. 
With regard to the preceding committee memberships, there is no evidence that the petitioner judged the work 
of others in his field in a manner significantly outside the general duties of these positions and consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Duties or activities which nominally 
fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international 
acclaim if they are inherent or routine to a particular assignment, or in a substantial proportion of positions 
within one's oc~u~ation.~ The petitioner's performance of general supervisory duties as required by hls 
appointments is not tantamount to judging the work of others in the field and cannot suffice to meet ths 
regulatory criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientz$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his research and agricultural projects pertaining to wetlands, buckwheat, 
Shuangxiling Lotion, and plant species.identification, but there is no evidence establishing that this work 
constitutes scientific contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner also submitted evidence 
of his authorship of published material resulting from the preceding research and agncultural projects. 
Material written and published by the petitioner relates to the "authorship of scholarly articles7' criterion at 
6 
 This is true with all duties inherent to an occupation. For example, publication is inherent to scientific researchers. 
Thus, the mere publication of scholarly articles cannot demonstrate national acclaim. The petitioner must demonstrate 
that the articles have garnered national or international acclaim, for example, by being widely cited. 
Page 12 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, CIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence 
sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an 
alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We will fully address the published work authored by 
the petitioner under the next criterion. 
The record includes several letters discussing the petitioner's scientific contributions. We cite representative 
examples here. 
East Asia Office, states: 
In 1996, I started a series research project on buckwheat. Bitter buckwheat (F.tataricum) and sweet 
buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) are one of the most important crops for local communities in 
China, Nepal, India and also in Japan. The activities on buckwheat in the Asian Pacific Ocean (APO) 
region are mainly in China, Japan, India, Nepal and Republic of Korea through networking 
collaboration. 
It was through working on these projects that I met [the petitioner], who was highly recommended by 
the Chinese Academic of Sciences as a lead scientist for that project. . . . [The petitioner] applied his 
unique research capabilities and rich cross field knowledge to extend the research area from 
buckwheat in-situ conservation to its relative wild species bio-economy, bio-system, chemistry 
researches, and achieved outstanding results at the end. 
 Since 1996, 
 started field 
investigation and research in the regions where bitter buckwheat was found including Sichuan, 
Yunnan and Guizhou Provinces. 
 He shllfully collected large amount of specimens, including 
materials for experiments and the related information. His research work included important subjects 
such as the taxonomy, distribution, habitat, plant community, micro-morphological characters, 
biodiversity, nutritional elements, medicine effect, ethno botany investigation and farm conservation 
of bitter buckwheat. Based on years of hard work and meticulous research, had made 
many important contributions like: 
1. 
 Resolved some long-time confusion in the scientific community by clarifying wild species 
problem, cultivating a few new species and discovering the relationship between different species. In 
the past, there are 10 species and 1 variety of Fagopyrum in China; two species of them are cultivated 
(Li An-ren, 1989). Now it was determined that there are 10 species of Fagopyrum in China, 
including three cultivated and 7 related wild species, bitter buckwheat besides Fagopyrum tataricum 
(L.) Gaertn, and has another species--Fagopyrum odonopterum - 
2. First discovered Jinsha river region of China is center of distribution and origin place of bitter 
buckwheat and related wild species. This was looking for a key place of distribution and origin place 
of bitter buckwheat and related wild species, that has important value to study distribution and origin 
place of bitter buckwheat and related wild species. This has value help to research species origin of 
bitter buckwheat which feel puzzled long time in science. 
Page 13 
3. First discovered the species--Fagopyrum lineare is wild ancestry species of bitter 
buckwheat, and discovered relationship between bitter buckwheat and related wild species. His work 
has helped improve the breeding of better buckwheat and more economized use of it in the world. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any 
public or private research, in order to be accepted for publication or funding, must offer new and usehl 
information to the existing pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original 
research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance 
in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 Professor 
 discusses the value of the 
petitioner's work, there is no evidence that it constitutes original contributions of major significance in the 
petitioner's field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For example, there is no 
evidence showing that the published research resulting from the petitioner's buckwheat studies was frequently 
cited by independent researchers. 
I first met [the petitioner] in Chengdu, China in September 2001, and joined in a United Staters] 
botanic research group in 2001, to do series of study projects in Sichuan, China. As a well respected 
botanist, he was enlisted to help lead our scientific expedition in the search for native Chinese plant 
species in western Sichuan. I returned again in 2003 and have developed the utmost respect for his 
intelligence, professionalism, honesty and kindness. 
He has cooperated with many international professors for joint-study projects, and is one of the top 
biologsts on wild plant resources research. He is very familiar with the distribution of wild plant 
resources, and possesses a vast understanding of native and garden plant classification. He is 
researched, especially, on the three main wild floral plants growing from the mountainous areas in 
West-south China--Gentians, Primula and Rhododendron. 
Professor nstitute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, states: 
From August 1985 to present, [the petitioner] has been doing research work in Chengdu Institute of 
Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. 
[The petitioner] researches resource botany long time, and possesses a good knowledge of resource 
botany, my colleagues speak highly of his research habits, his creativity, and the organized manner in 
which he approaches every problem. [The petitioner] was in charge of many projects founded [sic] 
by various sources, such as the Central Government, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National 
Foundation for Nature Sciences and international organization . . . . 
Page 14 
Professor Institute of Chinese Medicine, Sichuan Academy of Traditional Chinese 
Medicine and Pharmacy, Chengdu, China, states: 
From August 1985 to present, [the petitioner] has been doing research work in Chengdu Institute of 
Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Researched medicinal plant of nation civilian and wetland 
plant in South west China by long times. Familiar with species, utilizations and resources of Chinese 
civilian medicinal herb, Tibetan civilian medicinal herb, Yi Nationality civilian medicinal herb. 
Familiar with species, ecology and conservation of wetland plant. 
[The petitioner] set up a nongovernmental institute "West China Institute of Biological Resources" in 
1993, director and in charge of new medicine project about woman vagina disinfectant and finished 
this project on this Institute in 1997. This disinfectant was passed examination of Food Drug Agency 
of Control and Management in China. The medicinal factory produced this disinfectant and sale it in 
market. 
The record, however, does not include supporting evidence showing that the vaginal disinfectant developed 
by the petitioner constitutes an original scientific contribution of major significance in his field. 
The preceding letters of support indicate that the petitioner is a capable scientist who has earned the respect of 
others with whom he has interacted. The record, however, lacks corroborating evidence (such as an extensive 
citation history) showing that the research findings specifically attributable to the petitioner have been 
unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or have otherwise risen to the level of original 
scientific contributions of major significance. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, 
cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Cornmr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS 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 experts' 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 one would expect of a 
researcher or botanist who has earned sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive 
documentation showing that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Page 15 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of articles in publications such as Acta Hydrobiologica 
Sinica, Wuhan Botanical Research, and Acta Phytotaxonomica Sinica. 
 The petitioner also submitted 
evidence of several books he authored or for which he contributed material. On appeal, the petitioner 
submitted a book chapter he authored in Plant Genome: Biodiversity and Evolution (2006) and a book he 
coauthored entitled Resources and Tartaly Buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) and Related Wild Species in 
China (2006). These two books were published subsequent to the petition's filing date. As discussed 
previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the books published in 2006 in this 
proceeding. Nevertheless, the record does not include evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that 
any of the petitioner's publications had significant national or international distribution. Further, we note that 
authoring scholarly material is inherent to the research field. For this reason, we will evaluate a citation 
history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's published work when determining its significance to 
the field. For example, numerous independent citations would provide solid evidence that other researchers 
have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. On the other hand, few or no citations 
of an alien's work may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. In this case, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that his articles and books were frequently cited, and that 
they appeared in major publications or were otherwise published and circulated in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or intemational acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The record reflects that the petitioner has worked as a research professor for the Chengdu Institute of Biology, 
Chinese Academy of Sciences, since 1985. As evidence of the Chengdu Institute of Biology's distinguished 
reputation, the petitioner's appellate submission included information printed from the institute's internet site 
in 2006. The self-serving nature of this documentation is not adequate to demonstrate that the institute had a 
distinguished reputation during the petitioner's tenure. On appeal, the petitioner also submitted a December 
26, 2006 letter from the institute discussing his work and career achievements. This letter does not include a 
name, address, telephone number, or any other contact information. Further, the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner does not show that the petitioner's role as a professor was leading or critical for the institute as a 
whole. For example, there is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from other 
professors at the Chengdu Institute of Biology, let alone its more senior administration (such as its "Academician 
of the Chinese Academy of Sciences" and "Senior Officers"). The documentation submitted by the petitioner 
does not establish that he was responsible for the Chengdu Institute of Biology's success or standing to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or intemational 
acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signfzcantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this regulatory criterion. On August 1, 2006, the director issued 
' 
a notice requesting evidence for this criterion and the other regulatory criteria. The petitioner's response to 
the director's request for evidence did not address the salary criterion. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a 
September 4, 2006 letter from the Human Resource and Education Department of the Chengdu Institute of 
Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, stating that his income is 2,370 Yuan per month. The petitioner also 
submitted a September 8, 2006 letter from the Science and Technical Consultant Limited 
Liability Company stating that he earns 4,500 Yuan per month. With regard to the salary letters submitted on 
appeal, the petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it 
for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested salary 
evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, the AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
The appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the director. Nevertheless, the 
English language translations accompanying the salary letters were not certified as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3). Nor do these letters include a name, address, telephone number, or any other 
contact information. 
 Further, as the letters provide information regarding the petitioner's salary as of 
September 2006, they cannot be considered in this proceeding. As discussed previously, a petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
45, 49. Finally, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a 
high salary "in relation to others in the field." As a basis for comparison, the petitioner submitted a 2001 
salary table for scientific researchers. Salary data from 2001, however, is not an appropriate basis for 
comparison with the petitioner's 2006 income. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets ths criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has 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. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
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 with 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 
eligbility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The MO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 4 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in malung 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 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The MO's de novo authority has been long recognized by the 
federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 89 1 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 
Page 17 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is dismissed with a finding of fraud and willful misrepresentation of a 
material fact. 
FURTHER ORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted fraudulent documentation in 
an effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on elements material to his eligibility for a 
benefit sought under the immigration laws of the United States.