dismissed EB-1A Case: Anesthesiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 10185052 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 24, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an anesthesiologist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner met 
only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly aiticles ). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits dete1mination 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. 2010) 
( discussing a two-pait review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an anesthesiologist and professor at thd~---~----~IMedical University. 
A. Evidentiary C1iteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied five of these crite1ia, 
summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the evidentiary crite1ia at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), relating to judging and to scholarly articles. We will not disturb this conclusion. The record 
reflects that the Petitioner served as a judge of posters at the0Annual Meeting of the Chinese 
Society of Anesthesiology. In addition, it shows that she has authored English language scholarly 
articles appearing in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and the Journal 
ofNeuroinflammation, among others. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to membership, 
miginal cont1ibutions, and leading or critical role. Afterreviewing all of the evidence in the record, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria, as required. 
1 We note that in addition to the English language research articles referenced here, the record contains numerous foreign 
language atiicles. 
2 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion as she is a "Committee Member" of the Chinese 
1
ociety I 
of Anesthesiology (CIA), thelChinese Society oflntegrative Anesthesiology (CSIA), and the 
Medical Association an "elevated level of membership" for which she was chosen "by 
recognized national or international experts for her outstanding achievements in the field of 
anesthesiology." 
In his decision, the Director noted that the Petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in many 
associations but concluded that she "provided no probative evidence that the associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts" 
in her field. He further determined that "the committee memberships are roles for the association not 
memberships." 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's determination that committee memberships are not 
memberships is an "error of law" and provides one of our non-precedent decisions in support of her 
asse1tion. This decision was not published as precedent, and therefore does not bind USCIS officers 
in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and 
policy to the specific facts of the individual case and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in 
the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Accordingly, this 
decision is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Director's determination was an error of law, as 
asserted by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner further argues that the Director erred because he concluded that the associations in 
which she is a member do not require their '"general members to have outstanding achievements." 
Here, the Petitioner does not accurately represent the Director's conclusions. As we noted above, the 
Director concluded that the record had not demonstrated that these organizations required outstanding 
achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in her field. 
Upon review, the documentation in the record supp01ts the Director's conclusion. 
The plain language of the criteriln reqlires the Petitioner to establish not only that she is a committee 
member of the CSA, CSIA, and but also that "recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields" must judge the Petitioner's "outstanding achievements," in order to become 
such a member. 2 Here the record does not include evidence establishing that "recognized national or 
international experts" judged her achievements as a basis for membership. For example, the Petitioner 
provides correspondence from the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) 3 chairman referencing 
"A1ticle 31 of [CMA's] bylaws" which state that "national committee members" elect the committee 
members of the CSA but does not submit these bylaws. The record lacks other evidence regarding the 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinaiy Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (mdicating that the level of membership afforded to the 
alien must show that in order to obtain that level of membership, the alien was judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought.) 
3 The record reflects that the CSA is a specialty society of the CMA. 
3 
national committee members, or otheiwise establishing whether these members are "recognized 
national or international experts" in the field of anesthesiology. 
With respect to her membership on various CSIA committees, the Petitioner offers documentation 
from CSIA's chairman noting that "[a]ccording to the fourth chapter of the "Measures for the 
Administration of the Professional Committee of Chinese Association oflntegrative Medicine," 4 "the 
Society elected the best members of the Society ... as committee members." As with the CSA, the 
record does not contain the document referenced by the Chairman nor does the Chairman identify the 
organization he calls "the Society." Even were we to assume that the Society is, in fact, CSIA, we 
note that the Chaitman indicates that CSIA is "composed of medical science and technology workers 
of integrated traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine." The record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that these members are "recognized national or international experts" in the field of 
anesthesiology. 
Fidally, lith regard to her membership onl I committees, the Petitioner includes a statement from 
th chai1man stating that I"[ c ]andlidate committee members shall be nominated, recommended 
and evaluated by experts from , specialized branches and municipal medical associations." 
However, as with the CSIA and CSA, the Petitioner does not submit evidence regarding these experts 
establishing whether they are recognized as national or international experts in her field. 
The Petitioner must document that she meets each element in the plain language of the criterion. 
Without evidence establishing that committee membership requires "recognized national or 
international experts" in the field of anesthesiology to have judged her outstanding achievements, she 
has not done so. Accordingly, she does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In his decision, the Director acknowledged the originality of the Petitioner's work, but determined that 
the evidence did not establish its major significance in the field of anesthesiology. He noted 
specifically that she has "been a collaborator on scholarly published papers in the field" and that she 
has "presented [her] work at conferences," but concluded that she had not established the major 
significance of these presentations and papers in her field. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a Petitioner may show that the conttibutions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otheiwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that her scholarly research articles are original in nature. 5 We first 
note that the record includes foreign language articles along with the English translations of their 
4 The Chaiiman states that CSIA is a subsidiaiy committee of the Chinese Association of lntegra tive Medicine (CAIM). 
5 We note the Petitioner's argument on appeal that the DiI·ector "ignored" her peer-reviewed presentations at various 
symposia and "her published atiicles subject to peer-review in scholarly medical journals." However, contraiy to her 
contention, his decision references them directly. 
4 
abstracts. However, the Petitioner does not provide a full English translation of the aiiicles 
themselves. 6 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation 
is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language 
translation of these articles, we cannot meaningfully determine whether they are accurate and thus 
supp01i her claim that they are 01iginal conttibutions in the field of anesthesiology. Accordingly, these 
foreign language articles are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
Notwithstanding this, the record also includes peer-reviewed English language research articles, 
presentations, patents, and research projects which constitute original cont1ibutions in her field. With 
respect to the research articles and presentations, the Petitioner contends on appeal that, as "[t ]he 
scientific peer-review process is recognized as the scientific method of provoking widespread 
commentary," these peer-reviewed publications and presentations "are probative of the significance 
of [her] contributions to her field of endeavor." She does not provide documentation corroborating 
her contention that the peer-review process is so recognized. Absent this evidence, the fact that the 
Petitioner's articles and presentations were subject to the peer-review process is not sufficient to 
establish that they were of major significance in the field of anesthesiology. 
In addition, the Petitioner asse1is that the Director did not account for evidence of independent citations 
to her research articles when determining if they were original contributions of major significance. 
She points to evidence demonstrating that the citation rates for her work had increased "from the time 
the 01iginal petition was submitted to the date of the RFE" and argues that this "clearly showed a high 
professional medical interest in her research and findings." The petitioner has the burden of proof to 
establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request and continuing 
until the final adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm'r 1971) (providing that "Congress did not intend that a petition that was properly denied 
because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when 
the beneficia1y may become qualified under a new set of facts."). Without evidence showing how 
increasing citation rates after the date of filing demonstrate the major significance of her research prior 
to the filing of the petition, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director failed to account for the "382 ... independent citations" to 
her work in determining whether it constitutes an original contribution of major significance. 7 The 
Petitioner initially submitted evidence from Scopus Author Identifier demonstrating that the 
Petitioner's research has been cited by other researchers a total of 339 times. 8 As it relates to the 
cumulative citations of her work, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that she has made 
6 The Director noted in his decision that the Petitioner had submitted evidence related to this criterion that was "not in the 
English language" and "not accompanied by a certified English language translation in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )" and advised the Petitioner "therefore this evidence cannot be considered probative." He did not identify the 
evidence to which he was referring. 
7On appeal, the Petitioner refers to evidence submitted with her response to the Director's RFE. As we note above, a 
petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time of filing and continuing until the final adjudication. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. at 45, 49. Accordingly we will evaluate the evidence 
provided at the time of filing indicating that the Petitioner's work had received a total of3 39 citations. 
8 We note that this document included three foreign language articles not accompanied by full translations but that these 
articles received no citations and therefore are not included in this count. 
5 
miginal contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to 
identify her original contributions and explain why they are of major significance. Here, the Petitioner 
does not explain or provide evidence demonstrating how the cumulative number of citations of her 
authored aiiicles or findings establish her cont1ibutions of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
aggregate citation figures tend to reflect a petitioner's overall publication record rather than identifying 
which research the field considers to be majorly significant. 
The aforementioned documentation from Scopus Author Identtfier further demonstrates that her three 
highest cited English language articles received 137 (Anesthesiology), 67 (Neuropharmacology), and 
46 (Anesthesia and Analgesia) citations, respectively. Again, this c1ite1ion requires the Petitioner to 
establish that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Generally, 
citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research or written 
work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the citations for any of her published 
articles are commensurate with contributions of major significance. Here, the Petitioner did not 
articulate the significance or relevance of the citations to her articles. For example, she did not 
demonstrate that the citations to a particular article are unusually high in her field or how they compare 
to other articles that the field views as having been majorly significant. Although her citations indicate 
that her research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
number of citations to her individual aiiicles represent majorly significant contributions in the field. 9 
The Petitioner further argues on appeal that the frequency with which her research has been 
downloaded demonstrates that it is of major significance in her field. 10 She contends that the Director 
was wrong to reach the opposite conclusion as, in her words, her "medical work could not be viewed 
as important since her research and medical information could be downloaded by general citizenry." 
The Petitioner claims instead that "only medical professionals ... would view or even [sic] capable of 
deciphering [the Petitioner's] important research materials." However, the record lacks evidence, and 
the Petitioner does not off er documentation on appeal, corroborating her assertion or otherwise 
establishing that only those in the field of anesthesiology are downloading her work. Even had she 
done so, the Petitioner does not submit documentation explaining the relevance of these downloads in 
the field of anesthesiology. For example, she does not provide evidence establishing that this number 
of downloads is unusually high in the field of anesthesiology or comparing this frequency to the 
number of times others have downloaded articles viewed as majorly significant in the field. As with 
citations, the number of downloads indicate that the research has received attention from others, but 
the Petitioner did not establish that the frequency with which these articles have been downloaded 
reflect their major significance in the field as a whole. 
In addition, the Petitioner argues that the Director failed to account for letters in the record which 
"described clearly how the petitioner's scientific and scholarly articles are both miginal and of major 
significance in the field." Upon review, while these letters generally describe the Petitioner's research 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor).) 
10 The record includes a document from the China Nationa I Knowledge Infrastructure database reflecting that her atiicles 
have been downloaded more than 1, 1000 times. 
6 
in the field of anesthesiology, they lack specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence 
or high impact her work has had on the overall field. 11 For exam le Director of the 
Department of Anesthesiology o ~------------~Medical College oti O I 
University of Science and Technology, summarizes the Petitioner's "early research on the subject of 
anesthesia, I I" noting that it has "achieved 
internationally recognized breakthroughs," but does not offer detailed examples of these 
breakthroughs. I 11 I of the Chinese Journal of 
Anesthesiology, notes "[the Petitioner's] academic papers ... have attracted many positive feedbacks 
from the industry" and that "[her] study on the effect o~ ~ rates has 
played a guiding role in scientific research in this field and has made a great contribution to Chinese 
clinical anesthesia," but does not specifically articulate how the Petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field. Letters that specifically articulate how the alien's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. Letters that lack specifics and 
simply use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 12 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusmy statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Absent 
detailed examples of how the Petitioner's research has been of major significance in the field, the 
reference letters do not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
The reference letters also discuss the Petitioner's current research on the relationship between 
and discuss its future '---------------------,-------,...-------' significance. For example, in his correspondence states his belief that this research "will 
provide unprecedented new evidence for the b£ I anesthesia, 
which is of great scientific value and humanistic significance." '-----~ thel I of 
the Anesthesiology Department of th~ I Medical University, opines that "[the 
Petitioner's] scientific hypothesis based on pre-experimental results, is ve1y innovative" and states her 
belief that "the successful completion of this study will greatly contribute to the advancement of the 
.__ _______ _. field." Here, both authors speculate on the future significance of the Petitioner's 
work but do not provide detailed examples showing that the cunent impact of the Petitioner's research 
rises to a level of "major significance" as required. 13 Therefore, these reference letters are insufficient 
to demonstrate that the Petitioner's research already qualifies as a conttibution of major significance 
in the field. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the ma·or si nificance of her research is demonstrated b the 
a::lication of research from her project 
I ~- " 11 4 by other hospitals. The record reflects that this research bas been 
applied to projects canied out by thd I Hospital, thd I 
Medical University, among others. However, she does not provide evidence demonstrating how these 
11 While we discuss only a sampling ofletters here, we have reviewed each one in its entirety. 
12 See 6 USC JS Policy Manual F.2(B )(2 ), Appendix: Extra ordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
http s: I I www.uscis.gov/po licy-man ua 1/v o lum e-6-p a 1t-f-chapter-2. 
13 Id.; see also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regula toiy 
language but do not explain how an individual's contiibutions have akeady influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions ofmajorsignificance in the field.) 
14 This Petitioner references Appendix 2.3 of her RFE response in the appellate btief. In the letter accompanying her RFE 
response, she provides this desctiption of the evidence submitted therein. 
7 
hospitals' application of her research 1ises to the level of major significance in the field. For example, 
she does not submit evidence showing that this number of research applications is unusually high or 
otherwise reflects that her research has been widely implemented in the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's patents, they demonstrate that the Petitioner has made original 
contributions in the field ofanesthesiology. However, this criterion also requires that they be of major 
significance in the field. To establish her patents' "major significance" the Petitioner provides a 
document titled "Proof of Patent Application" from the I I Hospital of I I 
indicating that it used one of the Petitioner's patented products in 206 of its cases. While this 
demonstrates the usefulness of her patented product to this hospital, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
that her original contributions have been of major significance to the field as a whole. 15 Here, she 
does not submit evidence showing how this hospital's use reflects the patent's major significance in 
the field. Moreover, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that her two additional patents have been 
used by others, implemented in the field, or otherwise are of major significance in the field. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner does not meet this c1iterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed 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 she has served in a critical role forl !Medical 
~ersity ~ ~- As evidence of this, she points to a letter of recommendation fro.~ I 
L_J I of the I I the aforementioned letters of recommendation, and copies of 
awards she has received. 
In order to demonstrate that a petitioner served in a critical role, the evidence must establish that they 
have contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. A supporting role may be considered "c1itical" if the petitioner's 
performance in the role is (or was) important in that way. It is not the title of the alien's role, but rather 
the alien's performance in the role that determines whether the role is ( or was) critical. 16 
In his letterJ I states that "[the Petitioner] ... has played a sustained critical role in the 
development of clinical anesthesiology in our hospital." He asserts that "[t]he clinical and scientific 
research level of the Department of Anesthesia ... and its influence on clinical anesthesia research have 
greatly improved in the medical field" as a result of the Petitioner's "active participation in the 
academic exchanges on anesthesiology at home and abroad." Whilel I discusses the Petitioner's 
research and conference activities, he does not provide detailed examples showing how her research 
has resulted in improving the Department of Anesthesia's influence in the medical field. I lalso 
states that the Petitioner "trained many young talents in the field of anesthesiology for our hospital" 
but does not indicate how this training has contributed to the outcomes ofl lor offer detailed 
examples demonstrating that it has done so. 
15 See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
16 See 6 USC!S Policy J1anualF.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/po !icy-ma nua 1/vo !um e-6-pa ti-f-c hapter-2. 
8 
.__ __ ....,lalso notes that the hospital recognized the Petitioner' s contributions to the Department of 
Anesthesiology by awarding her "the title of "Advanced individual in scientific research for 50 years 
I I and "Third Prize for Advanced Individuals in Scientific 
Research ofYear2015," among others. The record contains copies of these awards which corroborate 
his assertion. We acknowledge that these awards demonstrate the Petitioner's importance to the 
hospital and the quality of her research. However,I I does not provide specific examples 
explaining how these awards for scientific research reflect the importance of the Petitioner's work to 
the outcomes of the hospital itself. Letters from individuals with personal knowledge of the 
significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful as long as the letters 
contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the petitioner's role for the 
organization or establishment was leading or critical. 17 Absent detailed information addressing how 
the instant Petitioner's role forl I was of significant importance to the outcome of that entity, 
.__ __ ---=-s .:.;le:.:.t.:.;te:.:.r..:;is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner served in a critical role forl I 
Further,..___ _ __, s letter does not include an address, as required pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(l). 
The remaining letters of recommendation, discussed above in the context of the original contribution 
criterion, lack detailed examples showing how the Petitioner contributed tol I in a manner that 
was critical to that organizations activities. I ! Director of the Department of Anesthesiology 
of thel !University, indicates that the graduate students whom the 
Petitioner has tutored "showed excellent anesthesiology theory research ability" but does not offer 
specific examples of how this contributed to the activities ofi I The remainder of the letters 
do not address the Petitioner's employment withl I As we note above, letters from individuals 
with personal knowledge of the significance of the alien's leading or critical role can be particularly 
helpful as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how 
the alien's role for the organization or establishment was leading or critical. 18 Absent a discussion 
of the Petitioner's contributions to I I or their importance to that entity, these letters are 
insufficient to show that she meets this criterion. 
In addition, the authors of this correspondence do not indicate, nor does the record demonstrate, that 
they currently or have in the past employed the Petitioner. We further note that the letters do not 
include the authors' full address. Accordingly, they are not in compliance with the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5 (g)(l) which provides, in relevant part, that "[e]vidence relating to qualifying 
experience or training shall be in the form ofletter(s) from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) 
and shall include the name, address, and title of the writer. .. . " For the aforementioned reasons, these 
letters are insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets 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 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
17 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F .2(B )(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence , 
h ttps: / /www. u sc is.gov/ po !icy-man ua 1/v o lum e-6-p a rt-f-ch apter-2 
1s 1d. 
9 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R.Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordina1y ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10