dismissed EB-1A Case: Biostatistics

~ .... Identtfying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
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 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 0 9 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Admiqistrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to hav~ 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 8C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion' must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen 
Thank you, 
)i./(J{lj(!/;ndL 
rPerryRhew 
t Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on July 13, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as a biostatistician. I The director. determined that 'the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national 
or int~rnational acclaim.· . 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 20(5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence o(a one-time achievement, specifically a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner Claims to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the A,ct 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 
I Although Part 1 of the Form 1-140 lists as the petitioner, however, 
the petition was signed by the alien and he is therefore considered a self-petitioner. ' 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very.high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 SI Cong., 2d Sess. 59. 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991).' 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. 
[d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten criteria. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which requirt? outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or interna~ional experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, dat~, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for ~hich classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
\ (ix) Evidence that the alien has. commanded a high salary <:>r other significantly high I 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or -
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. March 4, 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.2 With &spect 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 in a subsequent "fmal merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an· improper understanding of the regulations. 
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 evidJnce, ':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.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "fmal merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the reqUISIte evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidenc~ demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 c.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or 
international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
ld. at 1119 - 1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a fmal merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Ente'lrises, Inc. v. United States, 229 
F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 P.3d 683 (9 Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOl, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). . 
II. Analysis 
2 Specifically, the C0urt stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive,or 
evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 
C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
/ 
j 
Page 5 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on July 13, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a biostatistician. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the criteria under 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), (vi), and (viii). In his October 8, 2009 decision, the, director 
discussed 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), and (x). On appeal, the 
petitionerdid not address all of the criteria discussed in the director's decision. The petitioner does 
not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. We, 
therefore, consider those issues tO,be waived. This decision will only discuss the criteria argued on 
appeal. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationa'ly recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner claimed eligib· 
research fellowship. _ He submitted a letter from 
_dated May 19, 2009, offering the petitioner a postdoctoral research fellowship in the 
department of biomedical informatics from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2012. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation _ of the alien's 
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 
of endeavor." we concur with the director that the petitioner failed to establish that his 
employment by the through a postdoctoral fellowship, equates 
to a lesser nationally or internationally pnze or award for excellence. Furthermore, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships, postdoctoral fellowships, student awards, and financial aid awards cannot be 
considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of 
endeavor. 
The record of proceeding also contains evidence that the petitioner co-authored a research paper 
entitled ' which was chosen 
as a "Symposium Quality Award Finalist." The record contains no information about the 
symposium or the significance of such an award to demonstrate its national or international 
recognition other than counsel's statement in the October 7, 2009 response to the direc~or's request 
for evidence _ In her response to the _ counsel states that the petitioner "represented NYU 
at a statewide symposium of hospitals where each hospital through its nominated representatives 
presented their clinical research studies." Although the petitioner submitted some evidence that he 
was selected as a finalist, there is no evidence in the record of proceeding indicating that the 
petitioner actually received the symposium quality award. Further, according to counsel's statement 
this award is a statewide award and not one that is recognized nationally or internationally bey~:md 
the awarding entity. 
Page 6 
Finall y, the record contains ue from the •••••• 
_ presented to the The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i} requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 
Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element of this criterion. The 
petitioner. has not demonstrated that he is the recipient of this award or prize, nor has he 
demonstrated that this award or prize is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence. 
On appeal, counsel relies on the Del[lW~m~r 
award by the demonstrate lty 
for this criterion. In his decision, the director stated that although the petitioner received the 2005 
Best Exhibit award; the record contained no evidence regarding the "significance of the award" or 
"evidence of how many such awards were issued." Counsel submitted a letter from 
on letterhead dated 
December 11 - 15, 2009 stating that the "Residents Research Contest young investigators an 
opportunity to present their work to a conclave of their peers at a major international forum." _ 
_ also states that only one award is given in th7 category of best clinical application per year. 
On appeal, cou?sel also submitted a copy of the newsletter dated J - March 2006.3 
The newsletter contains a picture of the recipients of the 2005 
award and a two sentence description. In his brief on appeal, counsel explains that the petitioner is 
not pictured because he was ill on that day. lThe AAO notes that the newsletter is published by the 
awarding organization and that the petitioner is not mentioned in the description next to the 
photograph. As a local organization, awards given by the _ are not a nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards and record of proceeding contains nO.evidence indicating 
otherwise. Further, even if we found this award qualifying, which we do not, the regulation requires 
"prizes or awards" and one award is not sufficient to meet the plain language requirements for this 
criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judgedby recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields 
In his decision, the director determined that the petitioner's membership in the 
are not sufficient to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel 
does not provide additional or address the director's statements. We"therefore, will not 
address this criterion any further on appeal. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
3. The ••• 
publication of 
states that the Sphere is the "official quarterly 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discus~ing the impact of his research. On appeal, 
counsel argues that the "evidence submitted by the petitioner outlines the various research projects that 
the petitioner has undertaken to develop new and innovative medical techniques that aim to cure and 
treat various ailments." Counsel describes the work that the petitioner is doing with 
_as "original" and "groundbreaking." We cite representative examples of the letters here. ' 
states: 
I was directly involved with [the petitioner] when he volunteered to work with me on 
the brain tumor project during the academic year 2007-2008. We were involved in 
analyzing the results of recurrent, as well as primary gliomas that were treated with 
an antiangiogenic agent, Avastin. [The petitioner] helped in collection of the data, 
aggregation, "analysis of the data, preparation of graphics and analyzing the results. 
, During the project, I found that [the petitioner] has a keen intellect for scientific 
studies and a sharp analytical mind. He is a hardworking individuai that could be 
counted on to finish tasks in a timely fashion. His unique combination of being a 
physician, epidemiologist and' a statistician ,has given him an excellent grasp of 
analysis, which in turn, grants him the ability to design quality research studies. 
2007Ietter,_states: 
[The petitioner] worked for me for a short period of time as a research/data analyst 
from June to October 2006. His main task was to collect and anaJyze data from a 
large NYC-wide hepatitis B screening vaccination and treatment program. It was 
exceedingly difficult to find someone ~ho not only had a strong background in 
advanced statistics but also was a doctor by training. [The petitioner] was well 
ified for this doctoral fellowship' in the 
during which time he 
a project on recovery and pain 
management. Prior to that time, he had completed a 
_ with a focus on epidemiology and biostatistics 
medical training in India. 
[The petitioner] did a superb job. He was extremely reliable, diligent and 
trustworthy. His work was always of the highest professional quality. He is ~ very 
Page 8 
personable, well-mannered young man who was always eager to assist everyone. ,He 
is bright, anIbitious"well-disciplined and focused. In the short amount of time that he 
worked with me we were able to finish the main statistical analysis which was quite 
complex and involved. 
describe the petitioner ,as intelligent, reliable, hard-working, and 
professional. The petitioner's charaCteristics such as his "keen intellect" and his ability to complete 
his work in a "timely" manner do not distinguish him from other competent workers or demonstrate 
an original significant contribution. describes the petitioner's training as a 
physician, epidemiologist, and statistician as "unique" and states that it is "exceedingly 
difficult" to find someone with the petitioner's background, such training is not equivalent to an 
original scientific contribution of significance to the petitioner's field. 
In his letter dated November 23, 2009, 
states: 
expands upon the brain tumor project and 
This study is integral to the way that we understand high grade gliomas and its 
application is potentially ground breaking in the field of cancer research. Improved 
{'individualized therapy would be a marked shift in the standard of care for high grade 
gliomas in the United States. Since the' U.S. leads the world in cancer care the 
potential benefits of new treatment options are far reaching. Toward 'this end [the 
petitioner's] input was invaluable. From the conception of the study and its design, to 
the execution of its aims[,] [the petitioner's] keen intellect and sharp analytical mind 
were essential. Without him this research would not have been the crowning 
achievement that [it] is turning out to be. 
Al describes the research as "potentially ground breaking, 
not describe the current impact that such research has had on the field. Additionally, while. 
_describes the research as a "crowning achievement," he provides no details as to why it is 
regarded as such and therefore, this statement is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
made original contributions of major significance. 
[The petitioner] worked with me in 2003 on a difficult project involving identifying 
the differences between inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) and locally advanced 
breast cancer (LAB C), two entities that are often difficult to distinguish in both 
clinical and epidemiologic studies, He was able to make this distinction through a 
careful review of medical records and his finding of a poorer survival in patients with 
IBC predated a paper we subsequently published in the Journal of the National 
Cancer Institute in 2005. 
Page 9 
Although_ states that the petitioner was able to distinguish between two types of ~ancer 
through "careful review of medical records," there is no evidence of further research, a subsequent 
paper, or of the impact that this project had on the field. In addition, there is no evidence that these 
findings have resulted in new techniques or strategies. 
The record of proceeding contains a letter, from 
November 4, 2009. _ states: 
[The petitioner's] work supports patient safety and 'quality health, care - a national 
health priority. [The petitioner's] work and research projects are r~volutionizing the 
way patient care is administered in hospitals throughout the' country. He is making 
significant contributions to the science 'of patient care and his proposals and 
conclusions are being emulated by health care professionals in facilities nationally. 
Although _ describes the petitioner's work as revolutionary and states that it is being 
emulated nationally, the letter provides no details regarding which projects are revolutionizing 
patient care or which proposals and conclusions are being emulated. Also, _ does not 
specify which facilities are emulating the petitioner's work. 
The preceding letters describe the petitioner as a dedicated and talented researcher in different 
scientific studies, b)lt they do not specify exactly what his original contributions have been as a 
,researcher or biostatistician, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were 
of major significance in his field of biostatistics. It is not enough to be talented and to have' others 
attest to that talent An, alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this 
regulatory criterion. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but of m,ajor significance. We must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not'superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Moreover, the petitioner 
must demonstrate .his contribution in the field rather than simply to an employer or collaborator. 
While the petitioner has earned the admiration of those offering letters of support, there· is no 
evidence demonstrating that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on the field of 
biostatistics, cancer research, or anesthesiology, nor does it show that these fields have somehow 
changed as a result of his work. Talent)and success, however, are not necessarily indicative of original 
contributions of major significance in the field .. The record lacks evidence showing that the beneficiary 
has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or.impacted his field beyond the work 
that he does for his employer. 
The opinions of exp~rts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions stat~ments 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 submissiori of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
I 
Page 10 
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 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 iri any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 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. The petitioner also failed to submit 
supporting evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered 
the weight of the reference letters. 
We note that although the petitioner has documented citations to his published work which is 
reflective of the fact that the field has taken some notice of the petitioner's findings (as also 
indicated in his reference letters), the petitioner has failed to establish how those findings have 
significantly contributed to his field 
The record reflects that the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting that his 7 articles 
were cited 81 times by other researchers and scientists in their published works. 
I . 
As it relates to the citations to the petitioner's published work,the record contains a letter from_ 
which was published in J Ultrasound Med, in 2006. This study is a landmark 
study which showed that [a] success rate of 99.3% can be achieved with [the] use of 
ultrasound which is 10 - 60% higher than present gold standard nerve twitch 
technique. 
of 
The AAO notes that although _ describes this as a "landmark study," the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner reflects that it was only cited 2 times since 2006. We are not persuaded 
that the moderate citations of the petitioner's articles are reflective of the significance of his wot;k in 
the field. The petitioner failed to establish how the research findings or citations of his work by 
others have significantly contributed to his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
, 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Page 11 
In the director's decision, he concluded,that the petitioner's "co-authorship" of 5 scholarly articles was 
insufficient to meet this criterion. However, as the petitioner established that he has authored 
scholarly articles, we find that hf meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel states that the beneficiary has performed in a critical role for 
_ ~peal, counsel states that the petitioner's "role and job assignment are critical to the 
success of_ as a leading medical research institute. Counsel adds that the petitioner's "research and 
recommendations are changing the way care is administered not only at_ but at other medical 
institutions that emulate and follow the practices employed at ••• 
The record of proceeding also contains reference letters addressing the petitioner's role for_ In 
his letter mentioned above,_states: 
[The petitioner] has been instrumental in asslstmg the interdisciplinary team of 
cliniCians at in this initiative by providing the support needed 
to analyze and continually monitor appropriate process and outcome measures 
including CLAB infection rates, to further reduce these infections. 
* * * 
f[The petitioner] plays an important role as the professional responsible for 
aggregating the data needed to monitor· improvements through the rapid response 
system. 
* , * * 
-[The 'petitioner's] expertise allows him to play a unique and essential role in 
supporting aI}d working with clinicians to improve the quality of care and enhance 
patient safety in NYc. 
The record contains a letter from 
August 3, 2009._states: 
[The petitioner] joined in October of 
2006. He has been assigned as the data analyst to support the safety initiatives since he 
started employment. He is the primary analyst working on safety initiative. His 
position carries a tremendous responsibility that, is. of critical importance in executing 
the safety mission of the organization. [The petitioner] is responsible for assigning data 
dated 
Page 12 
entry of clinical information, analyzing it and organizing it in a manner that allows 
clinicians to understand and act upon the information. 
_____ -__ -_____ -.'of 
that the petitioner's "work 
supports patient safety and quality health care - a national 
In her letter dated J ul y 31, 2007, 
_states: 
" 
[The petitioner] has an essential role in supporting and working with clinicians to 
improve, the quality of care and enhance patient safety. His ability to ,aggregate, 
analyze, and consistently monitor data to support quality improvement initiatives at 
is critical to understand more' about the outcomes of these 
endeavors and areas in need of future focus. 
At issue for this criterion, according to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), is the nature of the role the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity 
that hired him. 
The letters submitted speak highly of the petitioner's intelligence and work ethic. Several of the 
-letters describe the petitioner's duties in detail and often state that the work that the petitioner does is 
!.critical to the institution. However, the petitioner's role is repeatedly described as a supporting role. 
The petitioner's ability to secure employment and contribute to the overall quality of patient care and 
safety does not equate to a leading or critical role for Further, the petitioner has not 
established how his position fits within the overall hierarchy such that his fole could be considered 
. "leading or critical role." Nor has he distinguished himself from those with whom' he works or those 
who appear to be in higher and more critical positions than the petitioner, such as 
the petitioner's supervisor. 
/ 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that th~ beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award specifically in his current field, or that he 
( 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence specifically in his current ~ield that m'ust be 
satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of 
, extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that,small percentage who have risen to the 
very top ,of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
Page 13 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 2010 596 F.3d 1115 at 1119 - 1120. The petitioner established 
eligibility for one of the criteria, in which three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3}. In this case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), experienced experts in the field do not 
compete for fellowships or competitive postdoctoral appointments. Therefore, such awards are not 
indicative of someone who is at the top of his or her field. Moreover, there is no evidence in the 
record of proceeding that the award from the NYSSA is nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in' the petitioner's field. Finally, there is no evidence that the petitioner received the 
symposium quality award and even if he did receive the award, again there is no evidence to suggest 
that it is a nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner has met the plain lruiguage of the criterion regarding authorship of scholarly articles at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and bases his claim of his substantial contributions under the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), in part, on documentary evidence reflecting that his published material was 
cited 81 times by others. ,While the petitioner submitted evidence of moderate citation of his work by 
others, we are not persuaded that such a 9itation rate demonstrates the sustained national or international 
,acclaim required for this highly restrictive Classification. As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to 
scientific research, we evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's 
:articles when determining their significance to the field. For example, numerous independent citations 
for an article authored by the petitioner would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been 
influenced by his work and are familiar with it. Such an analysis at the final merits determination 
stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at :1122. On the other hand, few or no citations of 
an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. 
While the petitioner's citations demonstrate some interest in his published articles, they are not 
sufficient to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner also claims eligibility for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) based on 
recommendation letters, which are not sufficient to meet this highly restrictive classification. We note 
that the letters were all from individuals who haye worked or interacted with the petitioner. While 
such letters can provide important details about the petitioner;g role in various projects, they cannot 
form the cornersto.ne of a successful extraordinary ability claim. Vague, solicited letters from local 
colleagues or letters that, do not specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have 
influenced the field are insufficient. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national 
or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien's immediate 
acquaintances. -See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 ie.F.R. _, 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Page 14 
Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts in not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, thecontent of the writers' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
The petitioner has not established the requirerp.ents of 8' C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record of 
proceeding contains no document explaining the 'beneficiary's position within the hierarchy of the 
various organizations listed. Moreover, when compared to the accomplishments- of individuals who 
submitted recommendation letters on his behalf; it appears that the highest level of the . 
field is far above the level he has attained. Por v./\.'UHIJLv, 
petitioner' s IJ~U""~'" 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the 
aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. Conclusion 
';Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
-',that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percyntage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive. that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.c. § 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule. "); see also Janka v. 
u.s. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 P.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts.' See, e.g~, Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought rem~ins entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361: Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.