dismissed EB-1A Case: Dermatology

U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JAN 2 7 2009 
LIN 06 200 50887 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
e/+ 
AJohn F. Grisson, Acting Director 
/ Administrative ~~~eals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
 An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
research in the area of dermatology. The petitioner initially submitted supporting documents including 
verification of her education, training and specialization, certificates for participation in medical conferences, 
her verification of past employment, one article written in English, articles written in Spanish, membership 
certificates for medical organizations, and nine letters of recommendation. In response to the Request for 
Evidence ("RFE) dated March 28, 2007, the petitioner re-submitted evidence of her professional memberships, 
actions to qualify as a rural doctor, and five letters of recommendation. She also submitted a list of her 
published articles, pamphlets about regional medical facilities, letters verifying that she published articles, and a 
list of conferences at which her work was displayed. 
 We address the evidence submitted and counsel's 
contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner 
does not claim eligibility under any criteria not addressed below. 
(ii) Documemtation of the alien's membership in associations in thejeld for which classijkation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of Iheir members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the American Academy of Dermatology ("AAD"), the 
Venezuelan Society of Dermatology ("VSD"), the Society for Clinical and Medical Hair Removal ("SCMHR"), 
the Federal District School of Doctors, the Yolanda Katz Medical Center, and APRONIPA. The submitted 
documents from the AAD indicate that five levels of membership exist; the petitioner submitted a certificate 
stating that she is a "Nonresident Fellow." The stated qualification for Fellow is the receipt of board 
certification and three years of practice as a dermatologist as endorsed by two AAD fellows. Although the AAD 
guidelines state that properly filed applications are reviewed by the membership committee and forwarded to the 
Board of Directors, they do not specify that either outstanding achievements are necessary for membership or 
that either body is made up of experts in dermatology. The submitted printouts from the VSD website state that 
two categories of membership exist, active member and titular member, however, the petitioner submitted 
nothing to reflect to which category of membership she belongs. Even assuming that the petitioner is a titular 
member, the higher category of membership, the record does not establish that outstanding achievemerlts are a 
prerequisite to membership. The website indicates that a titular member must have earned a dermatology degree 
in school, be recommended by three existing VSD members, have worked at least three years in the field, and 
have published two articles as the main author or threz articles as a co-author or presented four articles at a VSD 
conference. Not only does the evidence not show that outstanding achievements are required for membership, 
but it also does not show that VSD membership applications are judged by national or international experts in 
the field. Similarly, the SCMHR seems to be an organization of active participants in the field. The submitted 
printouts from the SCMHR website state that members must comply with certain safety regulations, be 
sufficient1 trained and certified, and comply with all licensing and medical requirements. The letter from1 
n 
president of the SCMHR, states that the organization's purpose is to help its members stay 
"current In t e changing technologies experienced in the hair removal profession" and does not indicate that the 
organization restricts its membership only to those with outstanding achievements within the field. 
In her original submission, the petitioner stated that mernbership in the Federal District School of Doctors is 
"[e]quivalent to medical board." The petitioner provides no evidence to show that this School is more than a 
regulatory and licensing body and rquires outstanding achievements nor did the petitioner provide evidence that 
prospective members are judged for membership by recognized experts in the field. Instead, the letter from Dr. 
, member of the Board of Directors, states only that the petitioner is a member and that 
she is in good standing with the organization. The petitioner submitted no evidence that any sort of association 
exists for the Yolanda Katz Medical Center or that the selection of doctors occurs because of their outstandin 
achievements or is done by experts in the field. Instead, the petitioner submits a letter from d 
president of the Center, stating that the petitioner was chosen as a voluntary member of the Board 
of Directors because of her "high sense of responsibility to the community." 
 The petitioner's role in 
APRONIPA is similar to her role with the Center in that she was involved with this community service 
organization and donated her time accordingly. She submitted no evidence that APRONIPA is a professional 
organization or that membership in any such organization requires outstanding achievements to be considered 
for membership. For all of these reasons, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professionul or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzjication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualifL 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community In his appellate brief, counsel states that the petitioner met 
this criterion through mention of her in an "Editorial" entitled "Contributions of Immunofluorescence in 
Dermatology" authored by 
 appearing in the 1994 edition of -'Dermatologia Venezolana." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3) requires that a foreign language document "be accompanied by a full 
English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." From the 
incomplete, uncertified translation, it appears that the petitioner's name is mentioned only once and that her 
study is referenced in one paragraph of a seven paragraph article. As such, it cannot be said to be primarily 
about the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evic'ence of the alien S participation, either individually or on upanel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of speczjication for which classzfication is sought. 
Counsel states that the petitioner meets this criterion by "train[ing] and teach[ing] Dermatology graduates as a 
Professor at the Department of Dermatology of the Jose Maria Vargas School of Medicine and in the 
Postgraduate Department of Dermatology at the Institute of Biomedicine at the Central University of 
Venezuela." 'The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would 
not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Working as a professor at a university inherently involves judging the work of 
students, who do not amount to those who have already risen to the top of the field. In addition, duties or 
activities which nominally fall within a given criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or 
international acclaim if they are inherent to the occupation itself such as a professor or teacher judging the work 
of his or her students. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientz$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the$eld. 
Counsel states in the original submission that the petitioner meets this criterion through her publication of "a 
multitude of articles and case studies," because of the "large amounts of research and studies [needed] to 
I 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. 
For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
provide conclusive results." The petitioner failed to prove how the articles and case studies made original, 
major contributions to her field. In the appellate brief, counsel argues that the petitioner's article appearing in 
the American Journal of Medicine makes an original contribution or it would not have been accepted by the 
Journal. Although the Journal clearly accepts "original scientific studies that have direct clinical significance 
.. .," it also accepts "articles of immediate interest to the practicing physician" and "useful reviews." The 
petitioner presented no evidence to show in which category her article fell. The petitioner also did not include 
evidence that these articles have been widely cited by other researchers in this field, that her findings have 
otherwise been adopted or used by dermatological professionals, or any other evidence that her work was of 
major significance to her field. In addition, as discussed under criterion (vi), the petitioner did not submit 
translated copies of her articles in violation of 8 C.F.K. 5 103.2(b)(3), so we are unable to consider them. Also 
as discussed under criterion (vi), the petitioner failed to show how any of her publications impacted her field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's last documented work in this area occurred in 1999, nearly seven years before her 
petition was filed and therefore does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 
The Editorial by 
 submitted by the petitioner in response to the RFE appears in Spanish and the 
translation submitted is not certified as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) nor is it a translation of the entire 
article. While the translated portion of the article seems to reflect that the petitioner participated in a research 
study touting the importance of using immunoflorescences in the dermatological laboratory, it does not reflect 
that the study was either primarily conducted by the petitioner nor that the study made an original, major 
contribution to the field. Jn addition, the Editorial emphasizes the usefulness of the bibliography of references 
included with the article and that the study argued for an increased use of an existing technology available to 
others within her field. The petitioner fails to show that this compilation of others' work or the petitioner's 
argument for the use of a specific technology amount to an original contribution of major significance to the 
field. In addition, is not an objective source as he is a former professor of the petitioner. 
In addition to her articles, the petitioner submitted copies of one abstract, of which she is the iead author, 
presented at the World Congress of Dermatology in 1992 and 31 certificates of authorship, exhibition, and 
presentation at dermatological conferences held between 1989 and 1992. Yet the record does not indicate that 
the petitioner's work received special recognition at any of the conferences nor does she submit evidence of any 
other sort of major recognition in her field associated with those submissions. We again note that the latest 
certificate is dated 1992, which is fourteen years prior to the submission of this petition and does not reflect the 
requisite sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted various letters of recommendation in support of her claim for eligibility under this 
criterion. These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 1. & N. Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation 
are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we reviewed the letters as they related to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
The petitioner submitted a letter of recommendation 
 , Head of the Dermatology 
Department at the Central University of Venezuela. 
 letter states that the petitioner's reports and 
articles "have been of great importance at the global level ..." and that "the work that [the petitioner] has 
completed has been a great contribution to medicine and to dermatology at the national and international 
levels." is not an objective source from without petitioner's circle of colleagues and acquaintances 
as he worked with her in a clinic nor did he cite specifics of how the petitioner's work impacted the field. 
, the petitioner's former professor, stated that the petitioner "is a pioneer in dermatological 
research. Her studies have facilitated and advanced the dermatological medicines across the globe. I can 
e uivocally state that she is one of the premier doctors, researchers and specialist [sic] in the field." m ih s letter reflects that he was in charge of a study on a new psoriasis drug and that the petitioner served 
as his assistant. As such, any original contribution resulting from this study can be attributed to - 
for directing and shaping the study instead of the petitioner for assisting with the research. In addition, his 
letter does not constitute evidence from those outside the petitioner's circle of colleagues and ac uaintances 
as he served as her professor and co-worker. The petitioner also cites the letter of 4 as 
evidence that she made an original contribution, however, the letter states only that the petitioner 
"collaborated in the diagnosis and publishing" of the study and once again does not constitute objective 
evidence since the letter is written by a co-author of the study. These letters also refer to work done by the 
petitioner over ten years prior to the filing of the petition so cannot evidence the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Dthzr letters of recotnmendation submitted by the petitioner include one fiotn, the potitisrrer'r. 
skiil immunology professor, stating that the petitioner "executed outstanding clinical research;"- 
President of the Children's Protection Association Paraguana, stating that the 
petitioner's "contributions were highly valued;" and , the petitioner's thesis advisor, stating 
that the petitioner's research skills were of "high quality." With regard to these letters, the importance of the 
petitioner's work is not fully corroborated by evidence of the petitioner's publications and other 
documentation of her work. In addition, the letters discuss work done by the petitioner over ten years prior to 
the filing of the petition and do not evidence the requisite sustained acclaim. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original 
but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner's research has earned the admiration of those providing 
letters of recommendation, there is no evidence that her work has had major significance in the field at large. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other dermatologists 
nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of her work. In 
sum, the record does not establish that the petitioner's research findings have made original, major 
contributions to her field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, she does 
not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in her field. In this case, the petitioner 
submitted one article in English from 1988 and seven articles in Spanish published between 1989 and 1999. 
The petitioner did not submit translations for the articles written in Spanish. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 103.2(b)(3) requires that "[alny document containing foreign language . . . be accompanied by a full English 
language translation . . ." As the petitioner failed to submit any such translation, we are unable to determine her 
role in the writing of the article or whether the articles would constitute scholarly articles to qualifL her under 
this criterion. We do note that the last article is dated 1999, which is seven years prior to the filing of this 
petition, so even if the articles had been translated, they would not evidence sustained acclaim. 
The English language article was published in the American Journal of Medicine ("AJM) in March 1988 and 
the petitioner does not appear to be the primary author. In addition. as with the Spanish language articles, the 
petitioner submitted no evidence that any of her articles have been cited by other dermatologists. The petitioner 
submitted a letter from to evidence the importance of the article, however, the letter is self serving 
a participated in the same study and seems to be the leading author of the article. The petitioner 
presented no objective evidence of the article's importance to the field. In addition, the petitioner presented 
only one article and the regulations require articles in the plural. For these reasons, she does not meet this 
criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the$eld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This critet icn generally appiies to the visual arts, however, because cour~sel claimed that the per~tioner meets 
this criterion, we have considered the relevant materials as comparable evidence of the petitioner's eligibility 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.K. fj 204.5(h)(4). Counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion by 
virtue of her presentation of "ideas, research and results7- at medical conferences. Specifically, the petitloner 
states that she served as a guest speaker and "showcased her research abstracts." We emphasize again that the 
ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.R.F. fj 204.5(h)(3) are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for publications by the petitioner (criterion (vi)), USCIS clearly does riot view the two criteria as 
being interchangeable. The petitioner submitted multiple certificates of participation as a speaker or presenter 
for medical conferences dating from 1989 to 1992. The petitioner's participation in these conferences predates 
the filling of' her petition by 14 to 17 years, so cannot evidence sustained acclaim. In addition, the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate how participating in these conferences conveyed the necessary national or international 
acclaim as no inf~rr~lation was submitted about the size of the conferences, the attendees, the selection criteria 
for speakers, or the acclaim due to those chosen as speakers or presenters. Also, as noted above, the petitioner 
submitted no evidence that her work was specially recognized at any of these conferences. Accordingly, she 
does not meet this criterion. 
(viiij Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially claimed to meet this criterion through her work at the Department of Dermatology at the 
Central University of Venezuela from 1992 to 1995. The petitioner claimed that she performed critical roles at 
other hospitals across Venezuela at various times between 1987 and 2003. On appeal, the petitioner contends 
that she played a critical role in hospitals across Venezuela. The petitioner submitted no evidence to show that 
any of the hospitals, institutions, or organizations where she worked have a distinguished reputation. In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted four brochures without the necessary translation per the regulation 
at 8 C.R.F. fj 103.2(b)(3). Even if these brochures had been translated, evidence of the nature of the facility does 
not establish its reputation. One of the brochures was for the Yolanda Katz Medical Center; counsel argues in 
his appellate brief that the Center is a distinguished organization because "a specific community relies on its 
specialized medical care." Counsel uses a similar analysis for APRONIPA because it "provides medical care to 
children of low income households that would otherwise not receive medical care." Although the Center and 
APRONIPA are positively impacting particular communities, the petitioner submitted no evidence regarding the 
Center's or APRONIPA7s reputation. Regarding the other organization that the petitioner claims has a 
distinguished reputation, letter states that the "The Institute of Biomedicine (Instituto de 
Biomedicina) is globally recognized for the research . . .," however, no objective evidence is offered to support 
this self-serving statement by an employee of the Institute. 
In addition, the petitioner did not ~rovide evidence that she ~layed a leading or critical role in any of these 
organizations. The letter from of the Yolanda Katz Medical Center, states that 
the petitioner served on the Board of Directors, but does not state how the petitioner played a leading role as a 
. . 
member of the Board. The letter from I]; stated that the petitioier was a 
valued volunteer for APRONIPA and that the petitioner, "with specialists in the area," was able to further the 
organization's mission. However, 's letter does not state that the petitioner was 
solely responsible for carryin out the organization's mission or performing in some other sort of leading or 
critical role for APRONIPA. letter states that the petitioner worked as a researcher, instructor, and 
scientist while affiliated with the Institute of Biomedicine, however, his letter does not state that she playcd a 
. . 
leading or critical role for the Institute. Instead, his letter states that the petitioner worked with other researchprs 
and treated patients as a doctor would be expected to do. Here, the petitioner demonstrated that she was 
employed by or volunteered with these organizations but failed to show that she performed in a leading or 
critical role instead of as a usual employee or volunteer. As the petitioner failed to show that any of the 
organizations with which she was affiliated have distinguished reputations or that she performed a leading or 
critical role for them, she does riot meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of her field. The record in this case 
does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a dermatologist 
placing her at the very top of her field at the time of filing. She is thus ineligible for classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and her 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 9 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.