dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiovascular Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19893950 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 5, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a cardiovascular researcher , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he 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)(l)(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 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 recognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationa lly 
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 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. USCJS, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must meet at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Beneficiary satisfied only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his eligibility for an additional criterion. After 
reviewing all of the presented evidence, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field.1 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
Although his brief makes various eneral claims about his research and work, the Petitioner focuses 
on his paper entitled, 
published in the European Heart Journal on behalf of the 
European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The Petitioner references a letter from I I who 
stated: 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing that although funded and 
published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance) . 
2 
His paper has already helped in formulation of two international guidelines which 
outline the worldwide standards for care to be followed in the care of patients. These 
guidelines include the 20181 
I I guideline on 
published in the European Heart Journal as well as the 2018 _____ 
I I published in the Journal of the American Heart 
Association. These guidelines form the basis of diagnosis and management of patients 
withl I in various conditions. [The Petitioner's] influence on these two 
major international guidelines from the leading heart associations in the world is huge. 
This has improved the medical care of patients who suffer from this complication after 
cardiac surgery and improve patient outcomes after cardiac surgery at our center as 
well as worldwide. 
The Petitioner also cites to other letters commenting on his papers and the guidelines, such as 
"[p ]hysicians and researchers around the world typically refer to these guidelines when making 
decisions on how to manage care of their patients in their daily practice" I land "[t]hese 
guidelines are considered the best source of information for researchers, cardiologist[ s], and cardiac 
surgeons to best understand these conditions and provide a framework for management of these 
conditions on an international level"I I 
The record contains the "2018 While the '---------------------------' letters indicated the importance of the guidelines in the field, a review of these guidelines do not show 
that his paper played a significant part or role in its creation. I I letter indicated that the 
Petitioner's paper helped in the formulation of guidelines; however, the Petitioner's paper is 1 of 786 
other articles cited within the guidelines. Moreover, the Petitioner's paper is not highlighted or 
distinguished from the other references. Indeed, the guidelines make a single, brief reference to the 
Petitioner's paper, indicating that [ f]urther details on the diagnosis and management ofl I 
Dare provided in a recent position paper" without any further elaboration. In the case here, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner's paper within the guidelines resulted in a contribution of 
major significance. 2 
In addition, the letters do not articulate and explain how the Petitioner's paper "has improved the 
medical care of patients" and "im rove d atient outcomes." I I Likewise, the Petitioner 
references a letter from _______ who generally stated that "through [the Beneficiary's] 
work in bothl I and ___ through an important series of publications, he has made major 
contributions to our understanding of I I afte surgery" without 
expanding on how the Beneficiary's work has significantly impacted or influenced the field in a major 
way. In the absence of specific information detailing the impact or influence of the Petitioner's work, 
the letters do not demonstrate that the work has risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner indicates that he submitted independent and objective reference letters. 3 For 
instance, stated that the Beneficiary "appears to be uniquely qualified for a 
2 The record does not contain the "201 to show both the extent and 
significance of the Petitioner's contribution to these guidelines. 
3 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
successful career in academic cardiology" and "[h]]is review ofl I in the intensive care unit 
has been most helpful." Here, the lack of specific, detailed information does not show how the 
Beneficiary's past work has caused contributions of major significance in the field consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. In addition, while a letter from I indicated that the Beneficiary's 
proposed treatment discussed in the position paper resulted in him sending out tests for his patients, 
the letter does not discuss how it has impacted the overall field rather than limited to his practice. 4 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact that the Petitioner's research or work has had in the overall field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 5 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language 
do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting 
this criterion. 6 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The 
US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner claims that his paper "was immediately endorsed for use by the American 
College of Cardiology [ACC]" and "[t]his alone shows the sheer impact on the field of cardiology." 
Although the Petitioner submitted two postings from ACC's website indicating the publication of the 
position paper, the screenshots do not support the Petitioner's assertion that ACC immediately 
endorsed his paper or findings. Again, the postings simply report on the paper's publication and 
summarize its points; there is no indication that ACC endorsed the paper or that the field considers the 
resulting research to be a contribution of major significance. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that all of his published works have garnered more than 600 citations. 
As guidance, examples of original work that constitutes major, significant contributions include, but 
not limited to, peer-reviewed presentations at academic symposia or 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. 7 In addition, citatory evidence may contain probative value in 
corroborating statements in recommendation letters or supporting other documentation in establishing 
the significance of the contributions. If the Petitioner provides citatory evidence, the burden remains 
with the Petitioner to show the accuracy, reliability, and relevance of those figures and explain how 
they demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his cumulative number of citations represents 
contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, aggregate citation figures tend to reflect a 
petitioner's overall publication record rather than identifying which published research, if any, the 
field considers to be majorly significant. Here, the Petitioner does not explain or specify how the 
number of citations to his individual or particular articles resulted in original contributions of major 
4 See 6 users Policy Manual. supra. at F.2(B)(2); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 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). 
5 See 6 USeIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
6 Id. See also Kazarian. 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulat01y 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
4 
significance in the field. Rather, the Petitioner contends that his articles have been published in 
"prestigious medical journals." The Petitioner did not establish that the publication of articles in highly 
ranked or popular journals inevitably demonstrates the field considers the research and work to be an 
original contribution of major significance. Moreover, a publication that bears a high ranking or 
impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate; it does not show an author's influence or 
the impact of research in the field or that every article published in a "prestigious" journal 
automatically indicates a contribution of major significance in the field. Publications and 
presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 
F.3d 1115. 
We note that at initial filing the Petitioner provided citation data from Google Scholar reflecting that 
his position paper discussed above received 65 citations while two of his most citation papers received 
307 and 107 citations, respectively. Again, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he 
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 shown that the citation figures for any of his written published articles are 
commensurate with contributions of major significance. The Petitioner did not articulate the 
significance or relevance of the citation data. For example, he did not demonstrate that these citations 
are unusually high in his field or how they compare to other articles that the field recognizes as having 
been majorly significant. Although this citations indicate that his research and work has received some 
attention from the field, the Petitioner did not establish that his citation numbers to his individual 
articles represent majorly significant contributions in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve this issue. 8 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes 
do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamal 11), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
8 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal/), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
(citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance 
of his 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 he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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