dismissed EB-1A Case: Cardiovascular Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12091424 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 30, 2020 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner satisfies the initial evidence requirements for this classification by 
submitting evidence of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or by 
demonstrating that she meets at least three of the ten alternate evidentiary criteria. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
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, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
Accordingly, 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 
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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a medical doctor and research scientist who performs research in the areas of 
pulmonary hypertension, cardiovascular science, and mechanical circulatorj assist devices. She has 
been employed as an associate professor at the University I Health Science Center 
I I in the Division of Cardiac Surgery since January 2019. Previously, the Petitioner was 
employed as a research associate atl !Healthcare in the division of cardiothoracic 
surgery, and as a graduate research associate atl I University. 
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 Petitioner claims to have met four criteria, summarized below: 
I (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
I (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria, pertaining to judging and scholarly articles. 
The record supports this conclusion, as it reflects that the Petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts 
for professional publications and conferences and has authored scholarly articles published in 
professional journals including Hypertension, The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, and 
Journal of Cardiology. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and maintains that she also meets the other two 
claimed criteria. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established 
2 
that she meets a third criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and has not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements for this classification. 
Evidence of the individual'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 this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. Major 
significance in the field may be shown, for example, through evidence that her research findings or 
original methods or processes have been widely accepted and implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field.1 
The Petitioner has submitted evidence of her publications in journals, citation history, participation in 
international conferences and symposia, and several reference letters from experts familiar with her 
work. At the time of filing, she indicated that she made an original contribution in the field of 
ulmona h ertension as the first researcher to identify the involvemen~t_of.....__ _____ _ 
in the molecular pathogenesis of pulmonary hypertension r'------,......,....,....----=-----,-1 L-----r---------,.J 
She further indicated that, in a related study, she discovered "the first known 
~-~ 
agent that limits the progression of pulmonary hypertension 
Finally, she indicated that her "contributions to the field of clinical research related to mechanical 
circulatory assist devices are, in the aggregate, original scientific contributions of major significance." 
The reference letters submitted in support of the petition confirm the originality of the Petitioner's 
research related tol I and pulmonary hypertension but are lacking detail explaining how her 
discoveries have already been widely accepted and implemented in the field to the extent that they 
have been regarded as contributions of major significance. For exampleJ I Senior 
Vice President for Research at I I Healthcare, states that the Petitioner's novel 
identification of the role I I plays in the progression of pulmonary hypertension I I I I and the role o~ I in inhibiting the progress of the disease, "is a huge step in the 
understanding and management" of this type of pulmonary hypertension. He states that the Petitioner 
has made "contributions of major significance to this field," but does not elaborate on the impact of 
her research. 
Likewise,~------~Division Chief of Cardiac Surgery atl I affirms the novelty 
of the Petitioner's research regarding! land pulmonary hypertension and refers to this research as 
a "scientific contribution of major significance." However, he does not further explain the impact of 
the research. Rather, he highlights its significance by noting that it "was so substantial that her abstract 
about this work was one of the top abstra~ed for presentation at the American Heart 
Association [AHA] Scientific Sessions held atL___JFlorida inl 12011," and subsequently 
1 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 ADll-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/defau lt/fi I es/USC I S/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
3 
published in the AHA journal Hypertension, which he describes as "the most respected h ertension 
medical journal in the world." I I currently a professor a .----'-----~---' 
School of Medicine, describes the Petitioner's discovery of the first know ,___-----,--------,----'agent 
that limits the progression of pulmonary hypertension as "truly novel and avant garde," and notes her 
publication in Hypertension. He emphasizes that she was recognized by the national and international 
community as evidenced by her invitation to present her research at the □Annual meeting of the 
Society of Free Radical Biology Medicine and at the AHA Scientific Sessions, but he does not explain 
how the Petitioner's research findings went on to significantly impact or influence the field. Although 
funded and published work may be "original," the publication or presentation of one's work alone is 
not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included one additional letter from,___ _____ ___,Professor of 
Surgery at I I who stated that the Petitioner's research "is truly a contribution of major 
significance in the field of pulmonary hypertension." Specifically he noted that her research "has led 
to a series of significant publications and resentations throu hout the world on clinical and medical 
knowledge related to the management of ________ ___,heart failure patients, including their 
selection, care and long-term prognosis fa mechanical device implantation and I I 
I I heart failure by the use o~ I mechanical devices." However, he does not describe 
her research in these areas, speak to its originality, or explain in detail how her work has been widely 
accepted or implemented in the field to support his conclusion that she has made contributions of 
major significance. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add 
value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 2 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Here, the letters do not, for example, indicate that 
therapeutic treatments were being developed as a result of the Petitioner's research, that her work has 
already had a widespread impact, or that it substantially influenced the nature or direction of research 
being conducted in her area of specialty. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that while she had established the 
originality of her contributions, she did not submit sufficient evidence to establish their major 
significance in her field. The Director requested additional evidence to demonstrate how her work 
had been unusually influential or how it has substantially affected her field. 
The Petitioner's response included one additional letter in su art of this criterion from~I --~~ 
I I a cardiac electrophysiology specialist a.__ _ __,;-'-'----.....,states that the Petitioner "has 
established a link between! land patients receiving assist devices" and states that 
her "research on the outcomes of patients treated with.___ ___ ___,devices will benefit heart failure 
patents worldwide." He also notes that her research "has immense potential in changing the 
management of heart failure worldwide" and provides a list of ten of her publications as "a testimony 
of [the Petitioner's] high impact research." Finally, he notes that her 2013 article published in 
Hypertension "is the only publication in the world to show the connection between! I and 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 
4 
pulmonary hypertension," and states that "[h]er findings have contributed to better understand heart 
failure and for better practices in the field of medicine as evidenced by her findings being majorly 
cited by other medical professionals in the area of heart failure." However, he does not describe in 
any detail how the Petitioner's research has already influenced medical practices and the record does 
not contain supporting evidence demonstrating this influence. In addition, as discussed further below, 
the record does not corroborate! ts assertion that the Petitioner's research in this area has 
been "majorly cited." Most of his other assertions regarding the impact of the Petitioner's work 
speaks to its potential or future benefit and do not demonstrate her research has already had an impact 
or influence commensurate with "major significance." 
Rather than providing specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has already substantially 
impacted her filed, the submitted reference letters point to the Petitioner's publication of her research 
in respected journals and presentation of her work at prestigious conferences as evidence that validates 
the importance of her work. 
However, the Petitioner's publications, conference presentations, and citation history, considered 
independently and in context with the evidence as a whole, are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
The record provides ample evidence that the Petitioner has published her research and presented at 
international conferences in her field. Such evidence verifies that the Petitioner has shared her original 
research. To satisfy this criterion, she must demonstrate that the reaction from others in the field is 
such that it supports a finding that her work rises to the level of "contributions of major significance" 
in the field. For example, 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 
petitioner's work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the significance of their 
contributions to the field of endeavor. 3 
The Petitioner submitted a full Google Scholar citation history in response to the Director's RFE which 
lists over 60 publications since 2010 and shows that she had received 305 total citations.4 With respect 
to her research related to and ulmona h ertension the citation histor reflects that her 
....._ ___ ~· published in Cell Biochemistry and Cell Biophysics in 2013, had been cited 32 times. 
The article that is most referenced in the submitted recommendation letters 
published in Hypertension in 2013, had garnered 22 citations. The Petitioner's most-cited articles in 
the area of ventricular assist devices were both published in The Journal of Heart and Lung 
Transplantation in 2012 and 2013 and have 46 and 28 citations, respectively. 
In evaluating this evidence, the Director acknowledged I Is statement that the Petitioner's 
work had been "majorly cited by other medical professionals," but determined that her "citatory 
history of 305 citations" did not compare favorably with that of leading scientists who have garnered 
thousands of citations, and therefore did not substantiate the major significance of her contributions. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 An incomplete Google Scholar printout submitted at the time of filing showed 269 total citations. The Petitioner also 
submitted a citation summary from ResearchGate indicating that she had 52 publications that had been cited 202 times in 
total. 
5 
We note that the comparison of the Petitioner's overall number of citations to that of other scientists 
or researchers in her field is not appropriate in determining whether she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, the evaluation of the Petitioner's total citations 
relative to others in her field would be more relevant in a final merits determination to analyze whether 
she demonstrated her sustained national or international acclaim and recognition of her achievements 
in the field through extensive documentation. 
However, it is appropriate to consider evidence of citations to specific articles that relate to the 
Petitioner's claimed original contributions of major significance. Generally, citations to a given article 
can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's work; however, the fact that 
a petitioner has published articles that other researchers have referenced, is not, by itself, sufficient to 
establish the she meets this criterion. Here, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence 
establishing that the citation numbers recorded in Google Scholar confirm that one or more of her 
publications has provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field 
at a level consistent with "contributions of major significance in the field." Although she has 
submitted evidence that her work has been cited by other researchers throughout the United States and 
internationally, she has not sufficiently shown that her work has been cited as authoritative in the field 
or has otherwise influenced the field in a significant way. 
We note that the Petitioner characterizes her own citation numbers as "moderate," but emphasizes that 
"the quality of submitted citations is also just as critical in determining whether the field has genuinely 
taken interest in a researcher's work." For example, she emphasizes that she published in 
Hypertension, which "ranks #1 among all hypertension journals and #4 among 67 journals in the 
I I category ... and has an impact factor= 6.873 and a manuscript acceptance 
rate: 22%." We note that a given publication's high ranking or impact factor is reflective of the 
publication's overall citation rate. It does not, however, demonstrate the influence of any particular 
author within the field, how an author's individual research impacted the field, or establish a 
contribution of major significance in the field. The record does not establish that the 22 citations 
received by the Petitioner's 2013 article in Hypertension reflect that it has been the subject of 
widespread commentary in the field consistent with an original contribution of major significance. 
Therefore, while we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the citation numbers may not fully convey 
the importance of the work, we cannot conclude that she has provided evidence to suppor~ Is 
claim that her work has been "majorly cited" by other medical researchers or that her contributions 
have already significantly influenced research in her field. The record contains ample evidence 
regarding the prevalence and seriousness of cardiovascular disorders including pulmonary 
hypertension and heart failure. While we recognize the importance of this field of medical research, 
the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that her work has 
already had a major influence in her field such as, for example, by significantly influencing treatment 
practices, development of therapeutics, or the direction of further research. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner has submitted new evidence on appeal in support of this 
criterion, including copies of two recommendation letters which she states were submitted in support 
of a 0-1 nonimmigrant petition filed on her behalf in 2014. In fact, most of the arguments made on 
appeal rely on these letters, with few specific references explaining how the previously submitted 
evidence was sufficient to establish her eligibility or how the Director erred in his evaluation of that 
6 
evidence. Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has 
been given an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for 
the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). As noted, the Director issued an RFE which included an explanation of 
the deficiencies in the record and a list of evidence that could be submitted to overcome those 
deficiencies. Accordingly, we will not consider this newly submitted evidence in evaluating this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner also submits evidence that she has recently had four abstracts related to mechanical 
ventricular support and heart transplantatiol acce}ed for presentation at thd I 
Heart and Lung Transplantations meeting in 020. However, this evidence post-dates the filing 
of the petition and has not been considered in our evaluation of her eligibility under this criterion. The 
Petitioner must establish that 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has established that she has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the individual has performed 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 played a leading and critical role as an assistant professor ac==J. 
as a research associate atl I Healthcare, and as a post-graduate research associateatLJ 
I !University. As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is 
or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in 
fact, leading. 5 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role 
that determines whether the role is or was critical. 6 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion based on a description of her research 
activities for each institution, rather than relying on detailed letters from individualf with personal 
knowledge of the significance of her roles. For example, she noted that her work at land 
I I Healthcare resulted in "significant publications and presentations" and submitted a 
screenshot from the surgical department's website where she is listed as an associate 
professor. s letter stated that she had performed "the critical role of translational 
medical researcher" a~--~ while I I indicated that she served "in an essential 
capacity as a key person in translational medical research" atl I Neither individual elaborated 
on how she contributed in a way that was of significant importance to the outcome of the university's 
activities, nor did their letters identify in what capacity the authors gained personal knowledge of the 
Petitioner's role atl I 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
6 Id. 
7 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I and a more detailed 
letter froml 11 lofl !states that he has "direct and personal knowledge of 
[the Petitioner's] leading and critical role in the academic division of cardiac surgery as judged by the 
research performed by her." He goes on to highlight her research and publications in the areas of 
pulmonary hypertension and ventricular assist devices, and notes that her findings published in 
Hypertension in 2013 were "singular in the university's cardiac surgery department." However, much 
of the research he describes was conducted by the Petitioner at other institutions as the record reflects 
that she has been atl lonly since early 2019. I I does not of,er probrive details in 
support of his assertion that she performs in a "leading and critical role" for or that he has 
personal knowledge of her roles for other universities. 
In his second letterl lstates that he has worked directly with the Petitioner atl ,I 
~------~Memorial Hospital andl lover the last 10 years and can confirm her "lead 
and critical role" for each institution. Specifically, he indicates that he has been "the principal 
investigator under whom [the Petitioner has erformed her research activities since July 2009." With 
~Q~gLto the Petitioner's role at~ __ ___, I !notes her discovery of the link between 
~nd pulmonary hypertension and her "extraordinary contributions in the development of this 
proJect' in his laboratory. He credits her with supporting NIH and AHA funding proposals, with 
placing the I I Division of Cardiac Surgery "on the national and international map by 
presenting her work at national and international scientific society meetings and publishing in high 
impact journals" and emphasizes her "critical part" and "importance to the Division of Cardiac 
Surgery" at the university. I ts statement establishes that the Petitionel perforled 
admirably in her post-graduate research role in his division and that her expertise in was 
important to his own research. It does not establish that she held a "leading" role based on her 
placement within the university's organizational structure, or provide sufficient support for a finding 
that she was responsible for the university's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning 
of "critical role." 
With respect to her role as a research associate at,___ _____ ___,Memorial Hospital, .... I ___ ___, 
states that the Petitioner was "the only MD who actively pursued research in the [hospital's] Division of 
Cardiothoracic Surgery." He emphasizes that the Petitioner had eight abstracts accepted for presentation 
at the 20161 !meeting, which was "the highest number by an individual in my department." While 
this information indicates that the Petitioner was a successful and productive researcher withinD 
I Is department, it does not offer probative details establishing how the Petitioner's role as a 
research associate was leading based on its placement in the hospital's hierarchy, or that her role was 
significant to the outcome of the hospital's activities to the extent that the role was critical. 
Finally,! !discusses the Petitioner's role atl I stating that she is "the only researcher 
with an MD pursuing full-time research in my division of cardiac surgery," and, out of five faculty 
members, "is the only faculty exclusively hired for her expertise in research," with responsibility for 
"leading the research efforts of the division." He further describes some of her duties, including 
maintenance of laboratory equipment and protocols, performance of animal and molecular biology 
experiments, development of collaborations with other physicians and scientists, and mentorship of 
medical and undergraduate students. Whilel Jconveys that he considers the Petitioner to be 
invaluable to the success of the medical research undertaken by his laboratory and indicates that she serves 
in a unique role within the department based on her medical degree and research interests, his letter does 
8 
not offer probative details explaining how her assistant professor role is leading within~I --~lor how it 
is of significant importance to the hospital's standing or success. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she is now providing "more detailed and probative evidence of her 
leading and critical roles and how they impacted, as a whole, the organizations of distinguished 
reputations for whom she has made original scientific discoveries." As noted, where a Petitioner has 
been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 
19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Nevertheless, we note that the new evidence, a third letter trorn I repeats much of the 
same content included in the letter previously provided in response to the RFE. He further elaborates 
on the Petitioner's current role atl lhy
1
explainilg that he and two other nationally renowned 
cardiovascular physicians were recruited by in January 2019 "to build a cardiovascular 
institute that would offer world-class care in all areas of cardiovascular medicine." I I 
explains that "[i]t is not possible to build a world-class cardiovascular center without certain 
extraordinary medical researchers who can lead and play the critical role between translating the 
clinical outcomes and advancing the research necessary to imagine, research, perform the experiments, 
demonstrate through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at national and international 
conferences and maintain the collaborations and seek the rants necessary to sustain such an effort." 
He states that the Petitioner "is one such a person." also explains that her research is 
expected to "critically influence patient care" in the~--~Tennessee area and other areas of need 
in the region. 
Whilel I indicates that he considers the Petitioner's role essential for the successful launch 
otl b new cardiovascular center, the evidence does not establish that this role is in a lead or 
critical capacity that is responsible for the standing otl I as a whole or that the cardiovascular 
center, opened the same year the petition was ti led, enjoys a distinguished reputation. Further, although 
he indicates that the Petitioner is heading his laboratory and leading rrearch activities for his department, 
it has not been established that she has a leading role within 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
B. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
9 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
111. 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 
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 l&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)(1)(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 
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. 
10