dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-A 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 30, 2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETI'riON FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a cardiologist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l )(A), 8 U.S. C. 
§ 1!53(b)(I)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets tive criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeaL 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
U nitcd States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
Maller ofK-A-
requir ements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-tim e achieve ment (that is a major, 
intern atio nally recog nized award). Alternativel y, he or she must provide doc umentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categori es of evi dence listed at 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3 )(i)- (x) (includi ng items 
such as awards, mem ber ships, and publi shed materia l in certain media). 
Satisfaction of at l east three criteri a, however , does not, in an d of itself, estab lish eligib ility for this 
classificati on. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (di sc ussing a two-part review 
where the docume ntation is first counted and then , if fulfilling the require d numb er of criteria, 
considered in the context of a tina! merits determination) ; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F . Supp. 3d 
126, 13 1-32 (D.D .C. 20 13); Rijal"- USC IS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011) , af.l'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 20 12); Matter o{Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369 , 376 (AAO 20 10) (holdin g that 
the "truth is to be determin ed not by th~ quantit y o f ev idence alone but by its qualit y" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evi dence fo r releva nce, 
probativ e valu e, and credibilit y, both individu ally and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence , to determ ine whet her the fact to be proven is prob ably true") . Accor dingly, where a 
petiti one r submit s qualit)'ing ev idence und er at l east three criteria , we will det ermi ne w het her the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or internationa l accla im and demonstrates tha t t he 
indi vidua l i s a mong the smal l percentage .at the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) -(3) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petiti oner is a cardiologi st empl oyed at and a cl inical ass istan t professo r 
of medicine at Univer s ity 's medical school. As he has not established that h e has rece ived a 
major, intern ationall y recogni zed awa rd, he must satisfy at least thre e of the altern ate regu lator y 
criteria at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h) (3)(i) -(x). 
A. Evid entiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petiti oner m et the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h )(3)( iv) and the 
authorship of schola rly articles criterio n at 8 C. F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(vi) . We find that the ev idence in 
the rec ord sufficiently supp orts the se conclusion s based on his work as a peer rev iewe r and his 
authorship of scholarly articles. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had es tabli shed that his 
role as a postdoctoral fellow at the University's 
med ical schoo l co nstitut ed a critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . T he Direc tor quoted 
Profe ssor of who asserts that the Petit ione r "is 
the only postdoctoral fellow who can perform echoca rdiogr am in an imal s suc h as mic e and rab bits, " 
which is a rese arch capab ility "neede d in the tield of sudden cardiac death " acco rdin g to 
The Director con cluded , however , that t he 
record did not estab lish this as a role for an organi zatio n with a distingui shed reputati on. 
On appeal , the Petitioner ci tes the evidenc e in the reco rd regarding the reputation as an 
integral researc h component of Universi ty' s med ical school, an Ivy Leagu e institutio n, 
2 
.
Maller of K-A-
includin g its highly regarded publication record , funding, and international reputati on. We co nclude 
tha t thi s evidence establi shes that the Petition er meets the critica l role criterion , due to this 
distingui shed reputation as well as the documentation in the record regard ing the Peti tioner's 
expe rtise in performing echoca rdiogram s on rodents a nd the key effec t this has in the field of 
research. Beca use the Petiti oner has met three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, we will 
discuss the remaining docum entation in the conte xt of a tina! me rits determination. 1 
B. Fin al Merits Determination 
As the record sati sfies at least three of the regu latory criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i )-(x), we will 
analyze the Petitio ner's acc omplishments and weigh the tota lity of the ev idence to determine if his 
succe sses are sufti cient to demons trate that he has ex traordinar y abilit y in the field of endeavor. We 
evaluate whether he has dem ons trated, by a preponderance of the ev idence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievemen ts have been reco gnized in the tield through 
extensiv e documentation, making him one of the small percent age who have risen to the very top o f 
the tield of endeav or. See sec tion 203(b)( l )(A)( i) of the Act ; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(2) , (3): see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 111 9-20. Here , the Petitioner has not shown his e ligibilit y for this 
class ificat ion. 
The Petiti oner is a cardiol ogist em ployed by University , howeve r it is uncl ear whether this 
position is full-time becaus e he is also a memb er of the staff. He received his 
bachelor of med icine and bachelor of surgery degr ee from the 111 
India , in 20 I 0. The Petitioner was a resident phy sician at Hosp ital and a 
clinical te llovv in medicin e a t from 20 12 to 2015. In 2015 , he se rved as an 
attending physician of the within In 20 16, 
he became a postdoctoral fellow for the with in Univers ity. 
In 2017 , .he was promoted to the position of clini cal assistant professo r of med icine at 
Universit y's medical school. 
As mention ed above, the Petition er has reviewed manu scripts, autho red schola rly articles, and 
performed a critical rol e for an organizati on that h as a dis tinguished reputation. Howeve r, the 
Petitioner has not demons trated that his achiev eme nts are refl ective of a "career of accla imed work 
in the field " as contemplated by Congress. H.R . Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990) . 
Regardin g 
the Petitioner's partic ipatio n as a jud ge of others' work under 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)( 3)(i v), 
an evalu ation of the signi ticance of his judgin g expe rience is sanct ioned under Kazari an. 596 F. 3d 
at 11 2 1, to determine if such evidence is · indi cative of the extra ordinar y ability req uired for this 
highly restric tive classifica tion. Participati on in the peer review proce ss does not automati cally 
demon strate that an individu al h as sustained natio nal or intern ationa l accla im at the very_ top of his 
1 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the criteria relating to published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We will consider the evidence 
relating to these criteria in our final merits determination . . 
... 
.) 
.
Maller (~f K-A-
field. Here, the Petitioner indicates that he has recently been appointed as a member of the editorial 
board for the but the list of the editoria l board 
members is dated September 201 7, after the filing of the petition. The Petitioner must establish t hat 
all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing 
and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The record also reflects that the 
Petitioner conducts peer reviews in the but he has not indicated how 
this peer review experience places him among that small percentage at the very top of the tield of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With respect to his scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the Petitioner has authored 12. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated how this publication record compares with others in the field to 
demonstrate that he has risen to the top of the field or that this is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3) . 
While the Petitioner established that he has performed a critical role under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) within the at University's medical school, an organizat ion with a 
distingui shed reputation, the record does not demonstrate how this amounts to sustained national or 
international acclaim or places him at the very top of his field. On appeal, the Petitioner also 
provides evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of and his role 
there, but the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's position as attending physician of the 
equates to experience at a level commensurate with the 
classitic ation sought. 
As evid~nce of published material about the alien in professional publications under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(\ii), the Petitioner cites the media coverage of the Petitioner's work published in 
· and The article in the 
contains a photograph of the Petitioner and another physician with a caption 
stating that they are standing in front of a research poster they presented at the 
_ conference for 2012. The poster discussed the "demographic 
and racial variations in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests for the year 2012-20 l3 based on 
the National Inpatient San1plc database." We find that this caption is not directly about the 
Petitioner and the record does not indicate that there is an article in this journal about him. The 
article pub! ished in the describes the study by the 
Petitioner and ~i s colleagues regarding racial differences and out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, but this 
article does not demonstrate that he has received acclaim for his work in the tield. While the 
Petitioner submits evidence of the readership of these publications, we tind that this media coverage 
is not about him and it does not establish that he has sustained national or international acclaim in 
the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's original scientific contribution s in the field under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Director concluded that although the record demonstrated the Petitioner had 
provided original scientific contributions within the tield of endeavor, the record did not establish 
that these were contribution s of major significance . As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to 
4 
.
Mauer c?f K-A-
resea rcher s, the c itation history or other ev idence of the influ ence of the Petiti oner's articles is an 
important indicato r of the significance and recognition that his wo rk has had on the field and 
whether such influ ence has been sustain ed. The record doe s not contain evidence dem onst rating 
how his citation count compares to ot hers in the field or how his overall publications amou nt to 
contributi ons of major significa nce. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his app ointment to the editori al board of the 
and as clin ical assistant profe ssor at Univ ersity's medical 
sc hoo l meet this criterion. As indicated above, the Petitioner's appointment to this editorial boar d 
appear s to have occurred alter the priority date and does not establish eli gibility. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). While the Petitioner's appointment at University's medica l school is 
indicative of the success the Petitioner has attain ed in his field , we tind that the record does not 
demonstrate the level of susta ined acclaim that is required for this classification. In addition, the 
reco rd lack s ev ide nce of how the Petiti oner's study on whether there is a corre lation between rac ial 
differences and cardiac arrest amounts to a contribution of maj or signiticance in the fi eld. The 
Petitioner has not shown how this study has intluenced others in the field or othenvise furthered the 
field in a major way. Therefore, we find the reco rd has not sufficie ntl y demonst rated that the 
Petitioner has s ustained national or international acclaim and is amo ng the small perce ntage at the 
top o f his field. See secti on 203( b)(I)(A)(i) o f the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2)-(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reason s discussed above , the Petit ioner has not estab lished eligibility as an individual of 
ex traordinary ability under section 203(b)(I)(A) ofth e Act. 
ORDER : The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (~f K-A-, ID# 1152666 (AAO Apr. 30, 20 18) 
5