dismissed EB-1A Case: Traditional Chinese Medicine

- ldentilying&i.&Wte 
prevent dearly unwamnted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
8~ 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a brief and additional evidence. On May 12, 2006, this office issued a 
notice of intent to dismiss. In that notice, the petitioner was advised of ,the following inconsistencies 
and derogatory information. 
The petitioner claims to have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor, as described at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The petitioner submitted 
what purports to be a copy of a plaque awarded to the petitioner by the World Health Organization 
(WHO), China's Ministry of Health and the World Federation of Acupuncture & Moxibustion 
Societies (WFAS) initially, in response to the director's request for additional evidence and again on 
appeal. World Health Organization, however, is spelled "World Heath Organization" on the plaque. 
(Emphasis added.) While this one error by itself might not raise Concerns regarding the credibility of 
the evidence of record, the evidence discussed below relating to the petitioner's claim to have authored 
scholarly articles pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) reveals a pattern of such errors 
and discrepancies both within the record and between the record and materials we located on the 
Internet. 
The petitioner claims to have attended the Fourth World Conference on Acupuncture & Moxibustion in 
Beijing in 2003. The petitioner submitted a cover page from the collected essays and articles from this 
conference. His alleged contribution to the conference was an article on flavonoids, which the 
petitioner submitted. The article is paginated, beginning on page 177, consistent with a final published 
copy, not a draft manuscript prior to inclusion in a larger collection. This evidence has the following 
discrepancies: 
1. The cover page of Collection of Panel Recommended Articles, Essays and Documents 
Presented to the Conference reflects that it is from the "4rd World Conference on 
Acupuncture & Moxibustion" (emphasis added) sponsored by WHO and WFAS. The 
proper ordinal for "4" is "4th." Moreover, the dates of the conference are provided as 
October 21 through October 25, 2003. Consistent with this date, the article the 
petitioner claims appeared in the collection of articles from this conference includes 
citations of articles authored as late as 2002. The materials about WFAS provided on 
appeal, however, indicate that the fourth such conference was actually held in 1996, not 
2003. The record does not resolve this discrepancy in dates. 
2. In the body of the submitted article, the correct spelling of "flavonoids" is used. The 
title of the article, however, is "Flavonois and Triterpenses in the Treatment of Heart 
Diseases." (Emphasis added.) 
3. Given the above discrepancies in what purporls to be a United Nations document, we 
attempted to verify the petitioner's authorship of this article on the Internet. We found 
the article "Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases with Chinese Herbs" at 
www.itmonline.org. This authentic, publicly available article is dated March 2002. 
Although the title and the first three paragraphs of the article in the record differ from 
the title and first paragraph in the article we found on the Internet, beginning with 
"While the use of herbs may be contradicted or limited . . ." the remaining two and half 
pages of the articles are exactly the same, including the references. The author of the 
Internet article is Subhuti Dharmananda, who is not the petitioner. The available 
evidence raises doubts that the petitioner participated in this conference as claimed. 
Moreover, the petitioner has claimed authorship of an article that is publicly available 
under another author's name. 
Further, the petitioner submitted an article, "175 Cases of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Treated by 
Traditional Chinese Medicine." The heading for the article indicates that it appears in the April 2000 
volume of "Traditional Chinese Medicine Periodedical Journal." (Emphasis added.) The article is not 
paginated. Moreover, while the title and abstract reference 175 cases, beginning on page two with 
"General Information," only 10 cases are discussed. Given the discrepancy, we attempted to verify the 
petitioner's authorship of this article on the Internet. We located the article "Treatment of Ten Cases of 
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome with Chinese Herbs, Acupuncture and Diet Precautions" in the March 2000 
issue of World Journal of Acupuncture-Moxibustion. This article is publicly available on the Internet at 
www.ontcm.com. Once again, while the title and first sentence of the authentic article does not match 
the title and first sentence of the submitted article, the remaining six pages of both articles are identical. 
The authors of the article in the World Journal of Acupuncture-Moxibustion are Cedric Cheung, 
Frederic Cheung and Jane Cheung, none of whom are the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has claimed 
authorship of a second article that is publicly available under othkr authors' names. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted the article, "Heart Disease and Blood Deficiency Under the Treatment 
of Traditional Chinese Medicine," that purportedly appeared in the June 2001 issue of Traditional 
Chinese Medical Periodical Journal, although "Periodical" is correctly spelled. The article is 
paginated, beginning on page 26, consistent with final publication as opposed to a draft manuscript. 
Given the discrepancies above, we attempted to verify the petitioner's authorship of this article. We 
located the article "Acupuncture Treatment for 100 Cases with Insomnia of the Type of the Heart and 
Spleen Deficiency," that also appeared in the March 2000 issue of the World Journal of Acupuncture. 
This article is also publicly available at www.ontcm.com. Once again, while the title and abstract of 
the authentic article do not match the title and preface of the submitted article, the one and a half pages 
of text appearing after "Therapeutic Methods" in the authentic article is identical to the one and a half 
pages of text following "Herbal Treatments" in the submitted article. The author of the article in the 
World Journal of Acupuncture-Moxibustion is Tian Jianai, who is not the petitioner. 
 Thus, the 
petitioner has claimed authorship of a third article that is publicly available under another author's 
name. 
Our notice advised that the pattern of errors on what purport to be documents from prestigious entities 
and the above discrepancies raise serious concerns regarding the credibility of such documentation and 
the remaining evidence. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, 
absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 586 (BIA 1988). Thus, we advised the petitioner that he cannot overcome 
the above findings simply by offering a verbal explanation. Moreover, given the questionable nature 
of the copies of documents discussed above, we stated that we would obviously not accept any 
photocopied documentation or letters as evidence to overcome the above derogatory information. We 
noted that pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5), we have the discretion to request the 
originals of any photocopies submitted. 
The petitioner did not respond to this notice. As such, the petitioner has not rebutted the above 
inconsistencies and derogatory evidence. Section 2 12(a)(6)(C) of the Act provides: 
Misrepresentation. - (i) In general. - Any alien who, by fraud or willhlly 
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 this Act is inadmissible. 
By filing the instant petition and submitting the evidence described above, the petitioner has sought 
to procure a benefit provided under the Act using fraudulent documents. Because the petitioner has 
failed to provide independent and objective evidence to overcome, fully and persuasively, our 
finding that the above evidence was a falsified, 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 submission of numerous fraudulent documents seriously 
compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the remaining documentation. In addition, we 
acknowledge that the petitioner submitted a single "certificate of translation" from Van Goh Lin for 
all of the translations in the record. The individual translations, however, are not signed by Mr. Lin 
or anyone else. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that "any document containing 
foreign language submitted to the Service 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." Given 
the serious inconsistencies and fraudulent documentation submitted in this matter and the lack of Mr. 
Lin's signature on the individual translations, we will not consider the single "certificate of 
translation" sufficient to cover each individual translation. Thus, we do not consider the translations 
in this matter to meet the certification requirements set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an herbal analyst. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
- 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted ten prizes, one of which was the alleged TCM Research Prize fi-om the World 
Health Organization discussed above. As discussed above, the word "Health" is misspelled on the 
plaque for this award. The petitioner was advised of this misspelling, inconsistent with a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize fi-om this major international organization. The petitioner did not 
respond. Thus, we presume the plaque is not authentic. The remaining awards are evidenced by copies 
of the alleged Chinese award certificates. As stated above, 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Without the 
original award certificates for the remaining awards supported by original evidence of their issuance, 
such as original newspaper articles reporting the petitioner's selection for the awards, we cannot give 
significant evidentiary weight to the copies of award certificates in the record. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted credible evidence to meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The petitioner submitted documents purporting to confirm his membership in the China Association of 
Acupuncture and Moxibustion (CAAM), with a membership of 14,000; the China TCM Society and 
the Chinese Medical Academy located in California. The petitioner submitted membership materials 
for the Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, open to any Chinese national who recognizes and 
accepts to be bound by the chapters of the academy and meets certain experience and licensure 
requirements, but the record contains no evidence of the petitioner's membership in the academy. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner is an honorary member of the academy, but the record is 
absent evidence of this honorary membership. While the petitioner is an honorary member of the 
China TCM Society, the record lacks evidence that the society and the academy are one and the same. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Assuming the membership certificates submitted are authentic, the petitioner has not credibly 
established that any of the associations of which he is purportedly a member requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted two Chinese-language documents purportedly about him. For the 
reasons discussed above, the translations of these articles are not certified as required under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the petitioner submitted no evidence of the circulation 
of the publications that purportedly featured these articles. As discussed above, an Internet search has 
revealed that the petitioner is claiming to have authored three articles known to have been authored by 
others. This derogatory information seriously reduces the credibility of all of the published articles in 
the record, whether allegedly by the petitioner or allegedly about him. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted credible evidence that he was featured in 
nationally circulated publications. Thus, he 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 alliedfield of speczfication for which classzfication is sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted documents purporting to invite him to speak at conferences. For the 
reasons discussed above, the translations are not certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.2(b)(3). Regardless, speaking engagements do not typically involve judging the work of others. 
The petitioner also submitted an alleged 2003 invitation from the Beijing Pharmaceutical Board "to 
preside at the panel to participate in evaluating academic essays and to provide an independent opinion 
thereto." In addition a 2000 certificate purportedly from Shandong Medical University recognizing the 
petitioner's service as a panelist to evaluate academic papers at a symposium. 
Assuming the above evidence is authentic, without additional evidence documenting the petitioner's 
relationship with the Beijing Pharmaceutical Board and Shandong Medical University, the number of 
others who served on the same panel and the petitioner's exact duties for these entities, we cannot 
determine the significance of this evidence. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien j. original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner's contributions claim rest on the work that served as the basis of his alleged awards and 
his alleged published articles. As discussed above, at least one of the petitioner's alleged awards and 
three of his alleged articles have been revealed as fraudulent. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted 
credible evidence relating to this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien j. authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As discussed above, at least three of the submitted articles allegedly authored by the petitioner have 
been revealed to have been authored by others. As stated above, 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. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Thus, 
we are not persuaded that the petitioner has submitted credible evidence relating to this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner submitted an employment contract to take effect once the petitioner has employment 
authorization. The petitioner's salary is dependent on the monthly bank balance of the employer, 
ranging from $0 a month if the employer's bank balance falls below $200,000 and $10,000 per month 
if the employer's bank balance exceeds $1,000,000. This contract, assuming it is even authentic, is not 
evidence of remuneration the petitioner had already earned as of the date of filing. Under this contract 
the petitioner could earn nothing. The record contains no Forms W-2 or foreign pay stubs or contracts 
establishing his past remuneration nor any evidence of the high-end remuneration in the field. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish, through credible evidence, that the petitioner has 
distinguished himself as an herbal analyst to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his 
field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
FURTHERORDER: The AAO finds that the petitioner knowingly submitted documents 
containing false statements in an effort to mislead CIS and the AAO on an 
element material to the beneficiary's eligibility for a benefit sought under the 
immigration laws of the United States.