dismissed EB-1B Case: Traditional Chinese Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
Date: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
MAR 2 9 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .• N.W. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(1)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a non-profit medical research organization. It seeks to classify the beneficiary as 
an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in 
the United States as a medical researcher in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had attained the level of 
achievement required for classification as an outstanding researcher. 
In addition, the director determined that the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary has at 
least three years of experience in teaching and/or research in the academic field, as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3). Further, the director concluded that the record lacks evidence 
that the petitioner has achieved documented accomplishments in the beneficiary's academic field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C). 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. The petitioner has not submitted any additional evidence on 
appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO concurs with the director that the record fails to 
establish that the beneficiary enjoys international recognition. Specifically, the petitioner has 
submitted qualifying evidence under only one of the required regulatory criteria, scholarly articles 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Therefore, the evidence submitted by the petitioner has 
failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of two types of 
evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the AAO finds that, regarding the field in which the 
beneficiary claims international recognition in this petition, the field of traditional Chinese 
medicine, the petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that this field meets the 
definition of "academic field" set forth in the regulation as "a body of specialized knowledge 
offered for study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher education." 
8 C. F. R. 204.S(i)(2). In addition, the record lacks the actual job offer issued by the petitioner to 
the beneficiary, pursuant to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). Further, the petitioner has not established 
that it employs the requisite three full-time researchers in addition to the beneficiary as required 
by section 203(b)(l)(B)(iii)(lII) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C). An application or 
petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by the 
AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
Page 3 
I. Law 
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): 
* * * 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described m this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in 
the academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States --
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(II) for a comparable position with a university or institution 
of higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(III) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, 
if the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 
persons full-time in research activities and has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
II. Qualifying Employer 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii) provides that a petition must be accompanied by: 
An offer of employment from a prospective United States employer. A labor 
certification is not required for this classification. The offer of employment shall be 
in the form of a letter from: 
(A) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a tenured or tenure-track teaching position in the alien's academic field; 
Page 4 
(B) A United States university or institution of higher learning offering the 
alien a permanent research position in the alien's academic field; or 
(C) A department, division, or institute of a private employer offering the 
alien a permanent research position in the alien's academic field. The 
department, division, or institute must demonstrate that it employs at least 
three persons full-time in research positions, and that it has achieved 
documented accomplishments in an academic field. 
Firstly, the petitioner has not submitted its job offer to the beneficiary. Instead, counsel states on 
appeal, has been offered the position of Medical Researcher by the petitioner in this 
petition for an indefinite term in which she has a reasonable expectation of permanent 
employment. The petitioner has signed its 1-140 petition form confirming its permanent job 
offer to Black's Law Dictionary 1189 (9th ed. 2009) defines "offer" as "the act or an 
instance of presenting something for acceptance" or "a display of willingness to enter into a 
contract on specified terms, made in a way that would lead a reasonable person to understand 
that an acceptance, having been sought, will result in a binding contract" and defines "offeree" as 
"[o]ne to whom an offer is made." In addition, Black's Law Dictionary defines "offeror" as 
"[o]ne who makes an offer." Id. at 1190. 
In light of the above, the ordinary meaning of an "offer" requires that it be made to the offeree, not a 
third party. As such, regulatory language requiring that the offer be made "to the beneficiary" 
would simply be redundant. Thus, the counsel's statement on appeal addressed to USCIS affirming 
the petitioner's job offer to the beneficiary is not an offer of employment within the ordinary 
meaning of that phrase. The record does not contain an offer of employment from the petitioner 
addressed to the beneficiary, which is required initial evidence pursuant to 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.S(i)(3)(iii). 
Secondly, the petitioner has not established that it employs the required three full-time 
researchers, in addition to the beneficiary. Counsel asserts that the a nine­
it does 
Three of the members are listed 
person "research team." However, other than 
not appear that the petitioner empl members of the team. 
as working in China Four of the 
members are listed as being either self-employed or v ... ,nv 
is listed as . "as an examiner for acupuncture in California"; 
at the University of Southern California, 
is listed working at Children's Hospital in Los 
is listed as being self-employed at her own clinic. No employment 
is for the remaining member, however a Google search 
identifies her as a self-employed acupuncturist in San Francisco. Finally, regarding the job 
duties of_he is stated as having "specialized in the treatments of all kinds of cancer and 
other common illness". _ duties do not suggest that he engages in full-time research 
actIVItIes. We reiterate that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(iii)(C) states that the 
petitioner must "demonstrate" that it employs at least three full-time researchers. Thus, it is the 
Page 5 
petitioner's burden to establish this element of eligibility. Since the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that it employs any full-time researchers, the petitioner has not established that it is a 
qualifying petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii). 
Thirdly, the director concluded that the record lacks evidence that the petitioner has achieved 
documented accomplishments in the beneficiary's academic field. On appeal, counsel asserts 
that the petitioner has demonstrated its achievement of documented accomplishments, but 
submits no new evidence. The petitioner had previously submitted its own promotional 
literature, including a listing of its areas of study, a list of its courses and speakers, and a 
statement that the organization "got great achievement on the science study and using integrative 
medicine treating difficult diseases, especially on cancer." As quoted above, the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(iii)(C) states that the petitioner must "demonstrate" its achievement of 
documented accomplishments. Thus, the petitioner has not overcome the director's concerns. 
III. Experience 
This petition was filed on March 25, 2010 to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding medical 
researcher in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that 
the beneficiary had at least three years of teaching or research experience in the field as of that date, 
and that the beneficiary's work has been recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence of the beneficiary's three years of qualifying 
research experience. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner previously submitted the 
beneficiary'S curriculum vitae and other evidence verifying her three years of research experience. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) provides that evidence of qualifying experience "shall" be 
in the form of letters from current or former employers. The petitioner submitted a letter from a 
representative of China Medical University, where the beneficiary attended from October 1986 to 
June 1987 to obtain her Master's Degree, stating the beneficiary'S "research article" has been well­
received in academic circles. The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
Hospital, stating the beneficiary was employed there from May 2004 to November 2007 as a 
specialist in the outpatient department of the hospital, and further stating: "In the meantime, .. 
• participated in the hospital clinical TCM [traditional Chinese medicine] research and treatment 
of colitis ... " However, the beneficiary'S curriculum vitae lists research duties at 
_Hospital from March 1984 to March 1984, and the curriculum vitae lists research duties for 
a total of less than three years. The petitioner also submitted several certificates issued by the 
petitioner to the beneficiary, appointing her as a guest researcher from May 4, 2008 until February 
12, 2009. However, the beneficiary's curriculum vitae does not list any experience as a guest 
researcher with the petitioner. In fact, the beneficiary'S curriculum vitae does not list any research 
experience after 1993. 
The AAO agrees with the director that the evidence submitted by the petitioner in this matter fails to 
establish that the beneficiary has obtained three years of research experience. 
IV. International Recognition 
Page 6 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[e]vidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition."l The regulation lists 
the following six criteria, of which the beneficiary must submit evidence qualifying under at least 
two. 
(A) Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding 
achievement in the academic field; 
(B) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the academic field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
(C) Published material in professional publications written by others about the 
alien's work in the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and 
author of the material, and any necessary translation; 
(D) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied academic field; 
(E) Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to 
the academic field; or 
(F) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly 
journals with international circulation) in the academic field. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under a similar classification set forth at section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion. With respect to the criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised III a 
subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
I The regulation at 8 C. F. R. 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for 
study at an accredited United States university or institution of higher education." The AAO additionally finds, 
regarding the field of traditional Chinese medicine in which the beneficiary claims international recognition in this 
petition, the petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that this field meets the definition of "academic field" 
set forth in the regulation. 
Page 7 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations.2 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination? While involving a different classification 
than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's 
reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. In this matter, the AAO will review 
the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did 
not submit qualifying evidence under at least two criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of two types of evidence. Id. 
v. Analysis 
Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on March 25, 2010, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher. The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement 
in the academic field 
stating: "In the year 1994, 
due to your outstanding achievements in the medical treatment and healthcare field, you are selected 
and certified to be the best doctor in this area. This certificate is hereby issued to recognize your 
achievements." The . submitted a January 15, 1998 "Certificate of Honor", also from the 
stating: 
"In the year 1997, you are selected and certified to be the best doctor in this area." The Petitioner 
also submitted a January 20, 1998 "Certificate of Honor" from the "Healthcare Department" of 
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Liaoning Branch stating: "In the year 1997, you are 
selected and certified to be an outstanding medicine doctor and also an outstanding manager in 
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Liaoning Branch Healthcare Department." These 
certificates renect regional honors for service to the government and a bank in LiaoNing Province. 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) (comparable to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D» 
and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) (comparable to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F». 
3 The classification at issue in Kazarian, section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act, requires qualifying evidence under three 
criteria whereas the classification at issue in this matter, section 203(b)(I )(B) of the Act, requires qualifying 
evidence under only two criteria. 
Page 8 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a 2002 "Certificate of World Chinese Expert" from the "World 
Chinese Interchange Association World Chinese Press", stating: "By reason of your extrude (sic) 
achievement to society, your biography has been issued through internet, and included in the large 
international exchange series annals, the Dictionary of World Chinese Experts." The petitioner has 
also submitted a March 3, 2003 certificate from the "Editorial office of Chinese famous people 
(contemporary volume) collection", stating: "According to your great achievement and effort to the 
Chinese people, your achievements have been selected into Chinese famous people (contemporary 
volume) collection." However, there is no evidence that such inclusion was based upon outstanding 
achievement in the beneficiary's academic field 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required 
evidence of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" has 
been removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized 
internationally as outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." 
(Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. Reg. 60897-01,60899 (Nov. 29, 1991.) 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a 
major award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards 
cannot serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. Cj 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a 
separate classification than the one sought in this matter). 
We are not persuaded that regional honors for service to the government and a bank in LiaoNing 
Province, and certificates of inclusion in a collection of "Chinese famous people" and a "Dictionary 
of World Chinese Experts" without evidence that such inclusion was based upon outstanding 
achievement in the academic field, are indicative of international recognition in the field. We 
therefore find that these awards do not constitute major awards. 
In addition, the petitioner has submitted a 2001 "New Century China National First Huatuo 
'Medical Sage - Medicine King Cup' Gold Medal Certificate from the "Expert Committee of 
Beijing Huatuo Medical Care School", for participation in an "Experience Exchange Conference" 
stating: ' has the honor to win the Gold Medal of China National First Huatuo 
'Medical Sage - Medicine King Cup"'. According to the index of exhibits provided by counsel this 
award given to the beneficiary for her "research thesis". Also, the petitioner submitted a 
"Certificate of Academic Award" from the International Conference on Culture and Medicine, 
stating that the beneficiary won "Third Prize" for an article submitted to the 
According to the beneficiary's curriculum vitae, this certificate 
was awarded in 2001 for her "thesis". Further, the petitioner submitted a "Presidential Award" 
dated "Jnly (sic) 18, 2001", from the "World Traditional Health Organization", stating that the 
beneficiary is a member of "Outstanding Scholrs (sic)", based upon her "unique accomplishments 
and contributions to the society." These awards are for academic achievement, not for 
accomplishments in a field of endeavor. While 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(A) references outstanding 
Page 9 
achievements in one's academic field, 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic field" as "a body of 
specialized knowledge offered for study." Academic study is not a field of endeavor, academic or 
otherwise. Rather, academic study is training for a future career in an academic field. As such, 
awards in recognition of academic achievement, such as conference awards for a research thesis, are 
insufficient. Academic awards are simply not evidence of international recognition in the field. 
Rather, they represent high academic achievements in comparison with one's fellow students. 
Further, regarding the "Certificate of Academic Award" from the International Conference on 
Culture and Medicine, the AAO cannot conclude that being the third-place winner of a provincial 
contest equates to "outstanding achievements." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of major prizes or awards pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in assocwtlOns in the academic field which 
require outstanding achievements of their members 
The petitioner submitted certificates documenting the beneficiary's membership in the following 
associations: China Association of Acupuncture - Moxibustion; the 5th National (International) 
Committee of Traditional Medical Institute, China Association for Culture Studies, Beijing, 
China; and, International Society of Licensed Chinese Doctors. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence that any of the above associations require anything other 
than the beneficiary having attained certain educational requirements, such as a degree, or the 
payment of dues for membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she is a member 
of associations which require outstanding achievements of its members. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in 
the academic field. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, 
and any necessary translation 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary satisfies a criterion counsel characterizes as follows: 
" has produced many pioneering results that often attract wide attention from other 
researchers during her presentation of her works at various international conferences. We believe 
these international forums serves (sic) as major media where_research achievements are 
widely discussed and shared." The petitioner has submitted a copy of two certificates for 
international conferences attended the beneficiary, and an article written by the beneficiary while 
working at the Medical Clinic. Counsel states the evidence ". . . 
indirectly served as some sort of evidence of published material about the beneficiary." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i) does not contain any criterion with counsel's wording. 
Instead, the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) requires evidence of published material about 
Page 10 
the beneficiary's work. The petitioner has not submitted evidence of published material about the 
beneficiary'S work. (We will consider the beneficiary's authorship of articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(i)(3)(i)(F)). 4 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 c.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(C). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied academic field 
has been serving as judge or reviewer of an ancient 
Chinese medicine textbook ' . The petitioner submits a copy of a 
translation of two pages of the book, listing ~ as a Vice Chief Editor, one of three. 
The petitioner submitted a statement from __ the textbook's chief editor, that the 
beneficiary contributed "70,000 words for the essential part of this book". The regulation at 
8 c.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(D) requires evidence of the beneficiary's participation as the judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied academic field. The evidence submitted by the petitioner 
does not establish that the beneficiary's job as assistant editor of an ancient medical textbook 
involves beneficiary's participation as the judge of the work of others in the same or an allied 
academic field.s (We will consider the beneficiary'S authorship of portions of the textbook under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(F)). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(D). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary'S original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, the petitioner submitted eight reference letters (four from the beneficiary's 
immediate circle of collaborators). The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
4 Counsel also states, "In addition, all the awards and prizes has received become another form of media or 
publication of international recognition of her contributions in the field ... " With regard to the beneficiary's receipt 
of major prizes or awards, the regulations include a separate criterion for major prizes or awards at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
major prizes or awards as a separate evidentiary requirement from published material about the beneficiary's work. 
5 As evidence of the beneficiary's participation as the judge of the work of others, counsel also states, ' was 
accepted as a member of the National (International) Committee for the 6th conference of Traditional Medicine 
Institute of China Association for Culture Studies." The petitioner has already submitted this evidence in support of 
the beneficiary'S membership in associations in the academic field which require outstanding achievements of their 
members. The regulations include a separate criterion for membership in associations in the academic field. 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
membership in associations as a separate evidentiary requirement from judging the work of others. 
Page 11 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E) does not require that the beneficiary's contributions themselves be internationally 
recognized as outstanding. That being said, the plain language of the regulation does not simply 
require original research, but an original "research contribution." Had the regulation contemplated 
merely the submission of original research, it would have said so, and not have included the extra 
word "contribution." Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires that the contribution 
be "to the academic field" rather than an individual laboratory or institution. 
In a February 5, 2009 reference letter, petitioner's employee, states that he met the 
beneficiary in 1993 at a conference on traditional medicine. He states "I (was) (sic) impressed 
about her speech about Chinese medicine and colon problems." He states that when he met the 
beneficiary again in 2008, "I noticed that she has accumulated plenty of knowledge of both clinical 
and research by using Chinese medicine to help those patients suffering from colon problems 
including colon cancer." _ also submitted two letters he sent to the beneficiary, on behalf of 
the petitioner, inviting the beneficiary for an "academic visit" to share her knowledge of Chinese 
medicine and the treatment of cancer, and to "do a co-research on the project of colon cancer and 
Chinese medicine." does not state that the beneficiary has made original scientific or 
scholarly research contributions to the academic field, nor does he explain how the beneficiary's 
work has impacted the field. 
states that he became acquainted with the beneficiary's scientific writing in 1998. 
He states that the beneficiary was "among a very small group of visionary scientists" that illustrated 
"the feasibility and significance in traditional Chinese medicine, in particular, acupuncture and 
moxibustion ... " He states that the beneficiary invented a method in traditional Chinese medicine 
to help patients with coronary artery disease, improving the probability that the patients will be 
cured, and he states that the beneficiary successfully cured hundreds of people. _does not 
describe the novel method of treatment which he credits to the beneficiary, nor does he provide any 
examples of how the beneficiary's innovations are already being applied in the field. 
states that he was the beneficiary's Master's dissertation committee member 
University, and collaborated with her on her research projects . 
• states that the beneficiary is the only scientist to develop several as for the purpose of 
showing how to cure colon cancer with traditional Chinese Medicine. states that the 
beneficiary's use of a combination of traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine, using 
acupuncture and moxibustion, "greatly increased our understanding of colon cancer and resulted in 
the development of even better treatment method (sic)." _ states that the beneficiary is "the 
only scientist in this country (China) with the ability to carry out the studies that she does." _ 
does not describe the beneficiary's treatment method, nor provide examples of independent research 
institutions using the beneficiary's technique, nor assert that the beneficiary's technique is becoming 
one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be expected of a contribution to the field 
6 According to_ the beneficiary trained with However, in his reference letter" 
..... does not state that he trained the beneficiary. In addition, states that the beneficiary 
attended Liaoning Traditional Chinese Medicine University from 1997 to 2000. However, the petitioner has submitted 
the beneficiary'S curriculum vitae, stating that the beneficiary attended Liaoning Traditional Chinese Medicine 
University from September 1995 to Ju1y1997. 
Page 12 
as a whole. _ states the beneficiary's ~d research "may sow the seeds for a cure for 
colon cancer and other diseases." While __ discusses the potential applications for the 
beneficiary's research,_does not suggest that the beneficiary's techniques are currently in use. 
states that the beneficiary is an expert in traditional Chinese medicine with many 
years of experience, althoug~ does not state the basis of his knowledge of the beneficiary's 
experience. _ does not state that the beneficiary has made any original scientific or scholarly 
research contributions to the academic field, nor does _explain how the beneficiary's work 
has impacted the field. 
states that the beneficiary is an expert in traditional Chinese medicine, although_ 
does not state the basis of his knowledge of the beneficiary's experience. _ does not 
state the beneficiary has made any original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the 
academic field, nor does _ explain how the beneficiary's work has impacted the field. 
states that he knows the beneficiary from "years of cooperation" working with her at 
Hospital. _ states that the beneficiary "has great interests in medicine 
field and also has the spirit of discovery." _ does not state that the beneficiary has made any 
original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic field, nor does_ explain 
how the beneficiary's work has impacted the field. 
who works with the beneficiary Hospital, states that the 
beneficiary has over 30 years of clinical experience. states that the beneficiary merged 
together western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine and "invented her own skill and 
method to cure patient." does not describe the beneficiary's treatment method, nor provide 
examples of independent research institutions using the beneficiary's technique, nor assert that the 
beneficiary's technique is becoming one of the "widely accepted standard techniques" as would be 
expected of a contribution to the field as a whole. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 
2000) (citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 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; USCIS may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
Page 13 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id at 795; see also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and 
vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing 
specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proor.? 
Considering the letters (and other evidence, if applicable) in the aggregate, the record does not 
establish that the beneficiary's research, while original, can be considered a contribution to the 
field as a whole. 
Weare not persuaded, for the reasons stated above, that the record establishes that the 
beneficiary's research is original or can be considered a contribution to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(E). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academic field 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted several articles authored by the beneficiary, as well as 
evidence that the beneficiary authored portions of a medical textbook. Thus, the petitioner has 
submitted evidence that qualifies under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of two 
types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i). 
VI. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of outstanding ability must clearly establish that 
the alien has achieved international recognition. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least two evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary is recognized internationally as an outstanding 
professor or researcher in the academic field specified in the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i); see 
also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence 
7 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aryr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conc\usory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
-Page 14 
under at least two evidentiary categories, the appeal will be dismissed on this basis alone. The AAO 
will not conduct a final merits determination.8 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)( 1 )(B) of the Act, and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d at 145. In any 
future proceeding on motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DRS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 c.F.R. 
§ 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding 
that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiCtion to decide visa petitions).