dismissed EB-1A Case: Traditional Chinese Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-Z-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 7, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physician of traditional Chinese medicine, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(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 Form I -140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria. of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he satisfies at least three criteria and provides additional 
evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
1 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants with extraordinary 
ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
1 
On December I. 2017. we sent a letter to the Petitioner requesting a new Form G-28 if he wishes counsel to represent 
him on this matter. We did not receive a response and will send our decision to the Petitioner. 
.
Matter of B-Z-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major. 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards. published material in certain media. and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(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 (O.D.C. 2013): Rijal v. USCIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the ''truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance. probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true.'' Matter o(Chawalhe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently a physician at the 
and he has stated his intent to continue practicing traditional 
Chinese medicine in the United States. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that 
he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for 
judging the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In his initial appellate submission, the Petitioner maintained that he "provided sufficient evidence·· to 
meet three additional criteria: published material under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original 
contributions under § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and leading or critical role under ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)_2 In 
2 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the criteria pertaining to awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(~)(3)(i) , membership under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), he does 
not contmue to do so on appeal, nor does the record support a finding that he meets them. Accordingly. we will not 
2 
.
Matter of B-Z-
addition, he indicated his intent to submit a brief and additional evidence. Subsequently, the 
Petitioner has provided documentation without specifying how it relates to the claimed criteria . 
Regardless, we have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, including the documentation 
provided on appeal, and conclude it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain 
language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Published material about the alien in pn?lessional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien 's "1-l!ork in the field for which class((ication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author of'the material. and any necessary translation . 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
The Petitioner initially submitted several articles about the fact that he has earned nine degrees in a 
span of 35 years. As noted by the Director , although the articles mentioned the Petitioner. they arc 
not published material about him relating to his work in the field, but rather, they are about his 
educational history. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
the published material be "about" the petitioner relating to his work in the field for which 
classification is sought. An article that is not about the petitioner does not meet this regulator y 
criterion. See. e.g .. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1. *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
In response to the Director ' s request for evidence (RFE ) on this issue, the Petitioner stated that a 
video program on youko.com featured him, and he provided a link to a website. However , he did 
not provide a transcript or other evidence sufficient to support his claim that this material was about 
him, nor did the submitted evidence include the date and author of the material, as required. In 
addition, the record does not contain sufficient evidence showing that the program con stitutes a 
qualifying publication (professional or major trade publication or other major media) per the 
requirements ofthe criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article entitled, 
the 
by published in 
He stated that the article 
''introduces [his] academic achievements." However , while it consists of a bio of the Petitioner and 
a summary of his work , he did not provide sutlicient evidence that the journal is a professional or 
major trade publication or major media . A "No te" appears at the end of the translated article stating 
that the is an "academic periodical .. 
that "spreads via the Internet, with an annual circulation of 5000 copies." It is not clear, however , 
where this information came from, whether from the Petitioner or the publication, and the record 
does not contain probative evidence to verify these claims or establish the significance of the 
circulation figures. 
further address these criteria in our decision. 
3 
.
Matter of B-Z-
The Petitioner also provided an article entitled, ' 
' and claimed published it. However, the article was not accompanied by 
a full English language translation. See 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b) (3). Furthe r, the Petitioner stated that 
is the "only large comprehensive daily 
printed in simplified Chinese in the US," but the 
record does not provide corroborative evidence such as comparable circulation numbers to show that 
it constitutes major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
article reflects published material about him in a professional or major trade publication or other 
major medium. 
The record additionally contains the title and first page of an article published in but 
does not include the entire article. Further, the document is in another language and a translation 
was not included. Finally , the Petitioner submitted several articles from the publica tions 
and 
but the translator only provided the title in English and did not translate the entire article. 
Further, these documents did not include the author of the articles as required pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C .F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that his documentation ret1ects "mas s media coverage ." He also 
provides several additional articles that are similar with some variations. that he claims were posted 
on websites such as . 
and 
Howeve r, the docum entation does not include screenshots of the articles with the unifonn resource 
locator (URL) as evidence of publication on these websites. Further, only one of these articles 
identify an author as requir ed pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Further, with respect to the articles provided on appeal, we note that the majority of these articles 
appear to have been published in 2017, after the date the petition was filed , and therefore 
cannot demonstrate that he satisfied the plain language of this criterion at the time of filing . See 
8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(l ). In addition, all of these docum ents are in Chinese and, although the 
Petitioner submits English translations with a statem ent the document is an "accurate translation of 
the original document;' the translator did not sign them. Any document in a foreign language must 
be accompanied by a full English language translation . See 8 C.F. R. § I 03.2(b)(3). The translator 
shall cert ify that the English langu age translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not 
submit a properly certified English language translation of the articles, we cannot meaningfully 
determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claim s. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not submit independent , objective evidence establishing that the 
publications provided on appeal constitute qualifying publications . While the Petit ioner submit s a 
few paragraphs generally explaining eac h website, the sources of the documents are not identifi ed 
and it is not clear if they were prepared by the Petiti oner or if it is information from the websites 
themselves. 
4 
.
Matter qf B-Z-
For the reasons discussed above , the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation, either individually or on a panel. as ajudRe o(lhe work of 
others in the same or an allied.field oj'.~pecificationfor which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner acted as an editorial committee member of the 
Therefore, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied 
this criterion, and we agree with that determination . 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient[{ic. scholarly , artistic , athletic. or business-related 
contributions '?{major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits four articles he authored for three different journals. In order to 
satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he 
made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field . For example, 
a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widel y implemented throughout the field, 
have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
Here, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner
' s articles or prescriptions have 
been considered of major significance in the field. Regarding the articles written by the Petitioner , 
he did not provide documentation of how often his articles are cited or other evidence sufficient to 
show how his work has affected the field. The Petitioner has not sufficiently identified the specific 
contributions he has made through his written work, nor has he demonstrated that his articles have 
been commensurate with contribution s of major significance . 
On appeal, the Petitioner also provides uncertified translations of recent articles that appear to 
reference his work, mentioned above in the published material criterion. Although these article s 
mention the number of paper s the Petitioner has written and the number of prescription s he has 
developed , they do not provide infmmation on how the paper s and prescriptions have been of major 
significance in the tield , nor does the record contain other evidence sufticiently establishing such 
significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship q{ scholarly articles in the field. in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner authored article s that were published in professional 
journals such as the Therefore , the Director 
found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we agree with that determination. 
.
Matter of B-Z-
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). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based on his position as the president for the 
from May 1992 to June 2004. On 
appeal, a letter from the former deputy head of this institute confirms that the Petitioner was the 
"legal representative and head .'' Although the Petitioner established that he held a leadin g role in 
this organization, the documentation does not demonstrate that has a distinguished 
reputation, as required . In response to the RFE, a letter from the President of the 
attested that has "high social reputation with 
remarkable achievements... The author listed achievements of the organization and noted that 
medical institutes with the word "union'' in the name are ·'all well-known and have considerable 
high social reputation. " However, the author does not identify the basis of his knowledge about 
or its field. Without additional, corroborating evidence, we find this letter insuffici ent to 
show that holds a distinguished reputation among research institutions. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meet s this criterion . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at I 1 19-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualities for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofB-Z-, ID# 745952 (AAO Feb. 7, 20 t 8)