dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7052022 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 27, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a cardiologist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See hnmigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 although the 
Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, she did not show sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrate that she is among the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
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)(l) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as chief f hysician in the cardiology department at the D I in I I China since 2007. 1 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record reflects that the Petitioner 
reviewed articles for a journal, authored scholarly articles in professional publications, and performed 
in a leading role as chief physician for .... l ___ _.J 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled three criteria. Because the 
Petitioner has shown that she satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the 
context of the final merits determination below. 2 
1 See cover letter submitted at initial filing of the petition. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADJJ-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(6 )(I )(A) of the Act). 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim, 3 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20.4 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
At the outset, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented her academic and professional career. 
Specifically, the Petitioner provided very little evidence of her education and employment history. 
The record reflects recommendation letters that make some references to her schooling and work 
ex erience. For instance, .__ ____ ~ _ _.indicated that the Petitioner "graduated from I I 
~-------,r=====-=--in_l_,986 and now serves as professor and chief physician in the Cardiology 
Department of,__ __ ___," and "studied in Japan for two years from 1996." Moreover, I I 
.___ _ _.I briefly stated that the Petitioner "studied in Japan for 2 years." The commentary for the 
proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 5 Here, the significant gaps in the 
evidence relating to both her academic and professional career do not meet this very high standard, 
nor do they support a finding that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner judged the work of others within her field, authored scholarly 
articles, and performed in a leading role. However, she has not demonstrated that her achievements 
reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-
723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to her service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of her experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary ability for this highly 
restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 6 She provided a letter from I I 
~--------~department at the Journal of China Medical University, who stated that the 
Petitioner "has reviewed dozens of articles." In addition, the Petitioner submitted evidence showing 
her as a 1 I for the textbookJ I Further, the Petitioner presented evidence 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictionmy 's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an effort over a long period of time). 
4 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
5 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 2. 
6 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
3 
reflecting that she twice served on the academic review committee at the Annual Meeting of Chinese 
I lin 2012 and 2017. However, the Petitioner did not establish that her 
judging instances places her among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). She did not show, for example, how her judging experience compares to others at the 
very top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her judging occurrences contribute to a finding that 
she has a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress or indicative of the 
required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that she garnered wide attention from the 
field based on her work as a journal reviewer or committee member. Accordingly, the Petitioner did 
not show that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act. 
Moreover, serving on a judging committee or in the peer review process does not automatically 
demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of her field. Without evidence that sets her apart from others in her field, such as 
evidence that she has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of review requests 
relative to others, served in editorial positions for distinguished journals or publications, or chaired 
technical committees for reputable conferences, the Petitioner has not shown that her peer review 
experience places her among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, the publication of her research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 7 
Here, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that she authored 118 articles from 1983 to 2018. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this publication record is consistent with having a 
"career of acclaimed work" or qualifies for this "very high standard." See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 56 
Fed. Reg. at 30704. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that her authorships reflect being among 
the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not show the significance of her authorship of 118 articles over 35 years or how her 
publications compare to others with similar years of experience who are viewed to be at the very top 
of the field. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of her articles can be an indicator to determine the impact 
and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For 
example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner may provide solid 
evidence that her work has been recognized and that other cardiologists have been influenced by her 
work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting that her 
articles cumulatively garnered hundreds of citations. 8 However, the majority of the articles have been 
cited 10 times or less, including dozens that have been cited two times or less. 
7 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
8 See screenshots from xueshu.baidu.com. 
4 
While the Petitioner's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field has noticed her 
work, she has not established that such citations are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in the 
field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to her research represent attention at a 
level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 9 Although the record reflects that she submitted the citatory history from five peers in 
similar occupations, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that these individuals are among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field. Further, while the citatory history shows that she garnered 
more citations than her submitted few samples, the Petitioner did not establish that her citations are 
unusually high when compared to others in her field as a whole, rather than a selective number of 
peers with lower citation statistics, setting her among the top of the field. 
As it pertains to her position as chief physician at I l the Petitioner demonstrated that the role 
itself is leading to the university hospital. However, the Petitioner did not establish that her role at a 
single organization or establishment represents sustained national or international acclaim or a "career 
of acclaimed work in the field." See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner submitted reference letters that discussed her research findings and 
studies, they did not show that her chief physician role resulted in widespread acclaim from her field, 
that she drew significant attention from the greater field, or that overall field considers her be at the 
very top of the field of endeavor. Further, her reference letters made broad assertions without 
providing specific, detailed information establishing that the Petitioner received sustained national or 
international acclaim either based on her role as the chief physician or based on her contributions in 
the field as a whole. For example,.__ ______ _,discussed the Petitioner's research relating to 
coronary heart disease risk assessment and therapeutic evaluation and indicated that "it improved the 
accuracy rate of coronary heart disease diagnosis from 80% to 90%, which is a pioneering work in the 
field." 10 Similarly, stated that "[in 2016 [the Petitioner] successfully performed 
the first case of coronary m Province, and since then, our hospital 
successfully completed 200 cases of coronary~------~ under her leadership, wining [sic] 
hi h acclaim from the Chinese counterparts and becoming a renowned demonstration unit for coronary 
nationwide." Likewise.I I commented that he collaborated with L-~-~~~--r-~-----7 
her for the book,'-------~- and asserted that "the book has been welcomed and praised by 
the doctors of cardiology and nuclear medicine, and [has] become the most comprehensive and 
systematic book about nuclear cardiology in China so far." 
However, the recommenders did not support their letters with specific information explaining how the 
Petitioner's work atl I and research drew sustained national or international acclaim and places 
her among the small percentage at ~top of the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For instanceL__Jdid not farther elaborate and explain how the overall field 
views the Petitioner's work as "pioneering" rather than an uncorroborated personal opinion. 
9 The Petitioner also submitted evidence of her attendance and presentation at scientific conferences, such as the First 
~--------.=--C.:....o.:....n_fe.:....r-'-en_c:....:;e....;o.:....f_N....c..,uclear Medicine, the I ~fNuclear Cardiology I I Scientific 
Session, and the.__ _____ ~Tntemational Cardiology Congress. However, the Petitioner did not establish that 
her paiticipation resulted in sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates evidence of being among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
10 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
Moreover, whi~ indicated that the Petitioner performed the first case of coronary! I 
I • I in~ Province, he did not articulate the significant impact or influence in the field 
as a whole rather than limited to the hospital where she performed the procedure. Furthermore,D 
I I did not justify his claim that the book "is the most comprehensive and systematic book about 
nuclear cardiology in China," and whether the book received attention from the overall field at a level 
consistent with being among the small percentage at the very top of the field. Although the Petitioner 
performed in the expected role of a chief physician at a hospital and made original contributions 
through her research and work, she did not demonstrate that she garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish her eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Moreover, the Petitioner did not fully document her academic and professional 
career. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Even major 
league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an 
individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the 
classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6