dismissed EB-1A Case: Dermatology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13189151 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a dermatologist, 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 immigrant visas available to individuals 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable evidence if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 established a clinic in I I offering "skincare and aesthetic treatments." She 
asserts that she is "a frequent ... guest in several mass media TV and Radio shows, providing her medical 
expert opinion for skin health & treatments and non-invasive aesthetic treatments." The Petitioner also 
speaks at trade conventions, at the invitation of suppliers. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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 satisfied seven of these criteria, summarized below: 
I (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
I (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
I (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
I (ix), High remuneration for services; and 
I (x), Commercial success in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only the criterion numbered (ix), relating to 
compensation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the six other claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we will not disturb the Director's determination regarding the Petitioner's 
remuneration. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the other claimed criteria. 
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. 
2 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submits information about several I I television and radio programs, and 
screenshots from her YouTube channel of her appearances on those shows. These still images, 
unaccompanied by transcripts, are not sufficient to show that her appearances amounted to published 
material about her, relating to her work, rather than commentary or advice regarding topics within her 
area of expertise. The screenshots show web addresses for the videos on the Petitioner's YouTube 
channel, but the broadcasts were in Spanish and the Petitioner has not provided complete transcripts of 
the broadcasts, with certified translations of their content. Therefore, the Petitioner has shown that the 
broadcasts occurred, but has provided only vague, general information about the subjects discussed. The 
Petitioner has not established that she was the subject of news coverage relating to her work, rather than 
a commentator providing general information and advice about skin care. 
The Petitioner also submits printouts or photocopies from various sources. Many of these materials 
appear to be promotional materials, rather than media coverage. Several publications ran pieces 
promoting the same fat removal procedure, featuring what appears to be the same quotation from the 
Petitioner, or a paraphrased rewording thereof, regarding the importance of consulting with a physician. 
Marketing materials created for the purpose of selling one's products or promoting one's services are 
not generally considered to be published material about the individual.1 
Other submitted pieces are lists of aesthetic procedures, the names of providers, and the prices they charge 
for those procedures. The Petitioner's business is among those listed, sometimes but not always naming 
the Petitioner individually. A list or directory is not about the Petitioner simply because her name, or that 
of her company, is included. 
A reduced-size image of a print article from Gente identifies the Petitioner and her business, but the 
English translation is not complete as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Instead, the Petitioner only 
submits a translation of the story's headline. Therefore, the submitted evidence does not show that the 
article is about the Petitioner, relating to her work in the field. A banner at the bottom of the page shows 
the address, telephone number, and website of the Petitioner's business, which suggests that the piece is 
an advertisement rather than media coverage of the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner submits a photocopy and translation of the first page of an article from the magazine 
Nacer & Crecer. The incomplete article and translation are of limited evidentiary value. The 
Petitioner is the author, rather than the subject, of the article. The submitted fragment consists mainly 
of a discussion of a procedure offered by the Petitioner's business. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the submitted articles and printouts are 
published material about her, relating to her work in the field. 
1 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 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
3 
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) 
The Petitioner submits 14 letters to support her claim that she has made qualifying contributions "by 
taking care of the skin health and image of prominent TV and Radio personalities." Eight of these letters 
are the same, apart from the names and biographical details of the individuals who signed them. The 
identical wording strongly suggests a common author, whom we can infer to be the Petitioner herself.2 
Furthermore, none of the submitted letters identifies any specific original contributions by the Petitioner 
or explain how those contributions are of major significance in the field. Instead, the letters praise the 
Petitioner's skill and indicate that she has mastered cutting-edge technology. There is no indication that 
the Petitioner invented that technology; some of the letters are from companies that developed equipment 
or techniques that she uses. The use of technology developed by others is not an original contribution. 
Apart from the letters, the Petitioner points to her "use of social media." Screenshots prove that her clinic 
has pages on Facebook and lnstagram, but the Petitioner does not explain how her "use of social media" 
amounts to an original contribution, or that such a contribution is of major significance in the field of 
dermatology and skin care. 
Following a request for evidence, the Petitioner has asserted that her media appearances constitute original 
contributions of major significance because she "contributed her medical expertise," but she does not 
identify any new information that she provided to the audience and readers. Instead, the Petitioner appears 
to have discussed existing treatments and techniques. The Petitioner states that she provided "tips" in 
some of these appearances, but does not show that those tips originated with her. Passing along 
information that was already in use among dermatologists is not an original contribution, even if members 
of a given audience were unfamiliar with that information. 
The Petitioner has not identified any original contributions of major significance in her field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The Petitioner contends that several of the pieces claimed, above, as published material about her are 
also scholarly articles by her. The Director observed that the materials are not scholarly. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends that "[t]he publication needs [sic] not be 'scholarly,"' because the regulatory 
language refers to "professional or major trade publications or other major media." The wording of 
the regulation plainly refers to "scholarly articles." A scholarly article should be written for learned 
persons in that field. ("Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or 
scholarship.")3 The submitted pieces are written for a general audience, aimed at members of the 
public who seek medical advice or are considering certain cosmetic procedures. 
2 Cf. Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (an immigration judge may reasonably infer 
that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
4 
Most of the cited materials are, as discussed above, promotional stories that include brief quotations 
from the Petitioner. The regulation requires the Petitioner's "authorship of scholarly articles," rather 
than brief quotations in what appear to be, essentially, advertisements. 
An article about al I treatment acknowledges "advice" from four dermatologists, one of whom 
is the Petitioner. She asserts that she "collaborated as an Expert Medical Advisor." The Petitioner is 
not the credited author of the article, and the acknowledgment does not specify the nature or extent of 
her input. Furthermore, the article was written for a general, rather than scholarly, level of 
comprehension. For instance, the article explains whatl l is, and how it is isolated from 
otherl !components. From the wording, it is evident that the intended readers are prospective 
patients, rather than trained experts learning how to perform a new procedure. 
The Petitioner is the author of the remaining two articles, but they are not scholarly. The translation 
of the fragment of the Nacer & Crecer article reads as though written for a general readership, rather 
than for learned persons in the field of dermatology. The translation begins: "There are currently 
treatment[s] and new technology that help[] us look much better. Nothing sexier than wearing 
beautiful legs all year long!" As noted above, the Petitioner has not submitted a translation of the 
Gente article, and therefore she has not shown its content to be scholarly. 
The record does not include any scholarly articles written by the Petitioner. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Petitioner asserts that she "has been displayed at relevant conferences as a professional speaker ... 
and exhibited" on various broadcast and print media. The Petitioner asserts that the term "showcase" 
"is applicable to any setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone, including 
corporate conventions." By regulation, the exhibition or showcase must be "artistic."4 The Petitioner 
has not shown this to be the case with her appearances. 
Also, the purpose of the exhibition or showcase must be to display the individual's work. In this 
instance, the Petitioner spoke at a trade "convention [which] was a showcase of the company's new 
products." The Petitioner submitted letters from officials of several such companies, manufacturers 
of equipment used in the Petitioner's profession. The Petitioner's participation in the promotion of 
suppliers' products does not cause the event to become a display of the Petitioner's work, rather than 
the products being promoted. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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) 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
5 
The Petitioner claims to have performed in a critical role for various media outlets. The Petitioner must 
establish that she has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. 5 
The Petitioner asserts: 
Because of the nature of [the Petitioner's] comments and recommendations when she is 
interviewed by TV Shows, Radio Shows, Newspapers and Magazines, it is critical that 
she provides the best recommendation about skin care treatments and non-invasive 
aesthetics treatments, as well as relevant information to reduce risks an[d] damage to the 
public. Any misinformation can damage the credibility of the TV Show, Radio Show, 
Newspaper or Magazine, thus, [the Petitioner] has played a critical and relevant role for 
these mass media at the time she provides her expertise on the very important issue that is 
skin care and non-invasive aesthetic treatments. 
By the Petitioner's logic, everyone quoted in the media regarding their area of expertise performs in a 
critical role for the publishers or broadcasters that disseminate those quotations. Speaking credibly within 
one's area of authority may be a professional obligation, but the Petitioner has not established that the 
reputations of these broadcasters and publishers hinge, to any significant extent, on the accuracy of the 
Petitioner's comments in print or on camera. 
Initially, the Petitioner cited only her media appearances as critical roles. In later submissions, the 
Petitioner has also asserted that her clinic is "one of the most prestigious centers for skincare ... and 
noninvasive aesthetic treatments irl I." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she "is the Director 
and owner of one of the most iconic aesthetic clinics inl I," which "is recognized by the most 
distinguished multinational companies specializ[ing] in skincare and aesthetic treatments." The record 
establishes the Petitioner's leading role with her business, but not that it has a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner asserts that her clinic's "Facebook page has over 39,000 followers and her lnstagram 
account over 13,000, totaling 52,000 ... people following [the company's] accounts." These numbers 
add up to 52,000 followers only if we assume there is no overlap between the two groups of followers. 
Aside from that issue, the Petitioner does not submit com
1
arative evidence to show the follower counts 
of other clinics that provide similar services inl Without this context, the follower counts do 
not show that her clinic has a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner submits printouts of blog posts 
about "micro-influencers," but these materials do not provide any basis for comparison between the 
reputation of the Petitioner's clinic and those of rival businesses in the same field. 
The Petitioner claims that published articles in La Nacion identify her clinic as "the best option" or "one 
of the best option[s]" for particular treatments. The articles in question, however, are essentially lists of 
procedures, with information about clinics that perform those procedures. The articles do not describe 
the Petitioner's clinic as being "the best" or "one of the best." The articles do not characterize the 
Petitioner's clinic as anything other than an example of where to obtain a given treatment. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
6 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
The Petitioner acknowledges that she is not employed in the performing arts, but asserts that her high 
remuneration is comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The "commercial successes" criterion does not refer to a given individual's personal income. That 
income is already covered by the above criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Rather, criterion (x) 
concerns the commercial success of projects in which the individual participated, documented by 
evidence such as box office receipts for films or record sales. The Petitioner has not identified any 
products or projects that would be analogous to a motion picture, play, concert, or recording, such that 
it would be comparable to commercial successes in the performing arts, and she has not submitted 
evidence comparable to box office receipts or record sales. Instead, she submits a letter from her 
accountant, and copies of two income tax returns that do not specify the source(s) of her income. 
We agree that this criterion does not readily apply to the Petitioner's occupation, but the Petitioner has 
not submitted comparable evidence as the regulations require. 
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 lesser 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 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 for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 submitted letters from prominent clients, and shown 
that she has appeared on television on some occasions, but the record as a whole does not demonstrate 
a level of recognition that indicates the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates 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 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7