dismissed EB-1A Case: Epidemiology

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 1 5 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not met 
the requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that the petitioner's evidence had 
met the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and (viii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), and (v). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the 
court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary 
criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that 
while US CIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to 
meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits · 
determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on February 22, 2012, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an epidemiologist. At the time of filing the petition, the petitioner was 
working as an ~ 
According to 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
information submitted by the petitioner from the "is a unique 2-year post­
graduate training program of service and on-the-job learning for health professionals interested in 
the practice of applied epidemiology." [Emphasis added.] The petitioner has submitted 
documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).Z 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a May 19, 2009 certificate from 
stating that he received a 
also submitted an April 24, 2009 letter from 
The petitioner 
stating: 
Congratulations on your outstanding 
performance in your public health studies this year! I 
am very pleased to offer you a merit-based scholarship to recognize your strong 
performance as an MPH [Master of Public Health] student. 
recognizes outstanding MPH students. This 
scholarship, in the amount of $4,425 USD, is designated for tuition costs and will be 
disbursed towards the current term. 
The petitioner's reflects institutional recognition from his 
alma mater rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of 
endeavor. As such, academic scholarships cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's 
field of endeavor. Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser 
classification than the one sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such 
criteria as grade point average, is not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability 
to benefit the national interest. Matter of New York State Dep 't. ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, 
n.6 (Comm'r 1998). Thus, academic performance is certainly not comparable to the awards 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this 
more exclusive classification. Moreover, competition for the petitioner's 
was limited to other MPH students enrolled in the 
Experienced epidemiologists who have already 
completed their educational studies do not seek such student scholarships. The petitioner's 
scholarship represented financial support for his then ongoing graduate studies at 
not a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence in epidemiology. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner's was recognized beyond his alma 
mater at a level commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
The netitioner submitted a December 16. 2009 letter from · 
stating: 
On behalf of th~:: Committee, I am delighted to notify you that you have been 
selected to move to the final phase in the process for acceptance into 
program for the class beginning in July 2010. At this point, the Selection 
Committee has chosen the candidates that we want to formally offer positions in the next 
:::lass. The final phase is for you to indicate if you are still interested in participating in 
the Program. We will then forward the names of interested candidates to the Atlanta 
Human Resources Center and they will contact you with the formal job offer. 
We look forward to receiving your signed response memo no later than 5:00 PM (EST), 
December 21, 2009. 
* * * 
Since you are not a U.S. citizen, your appointment will be through the 
Please note that this offer is contingent upon verification of credentials and a favorable 
background check. 
* * * 
In considering the offer for a position in the 
following requirements of those who join the 
• A full two-year commitment to an assignment; 
, please again review the 
• Complete attendance at the following conference and ·courses: 
o Spring Conference (April 18 through April 26, 2010) (NOTE: This 
Conference occurs before the 2-year assignment begins and requires 
participation in assignment interviews on Saturday, April 25th. Travel will be 
provided by the program.) 
o Summer : Course (4 weeks in July, 2010) 
o Annual Fall Courses (2010 and 2011 and :onferences in 2011 and 2012) 
o Regional and national conferences and other meetings, as required 
o ~ounds 
• Moving from your current location to an assignment in another location at least 
50 miles away; 
• Flexibility and willingness to match to any of at least five assignments; 
• Termination of previous work and school responsihilities; 
• Ability to travel on short notice as needed by (most travel lasts less than one 
month); 
• Flexibility in 
work days and hours to ensure rapid response to public health problems 
and to meet training requirements .... 
If you have questions or concerns about meeting any of the above requirements, contact Dr . 
. . 
. . prior to accepting this offer. 
~--~-------' 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
We look forward to welcoming you in April 2010 when the incoming class comes to 
Atlanta to participate in the annual Conference and assignment activities. 
In addition, the petitioner 
submitted page 21 of the 59th Annual Conference program book that 
identifies him among 85 members ofthe "Incoming Class of2010." 
The petitioner also submitted information from the website stating: 
More About the 
The is primarily a post-doctoral training program. 
* * * 
Training and Service 
The program provides competency-based training in both the classroom and through on­
the-jo learning activities. Additionally officers provide service to the and our 
public health partners. 
Training 
Classroom instruction includes topics such as applied epidemiology, biostatistics, public 
health surveillance, scientific writing, and working with the media, as well as emerging 
public health issues. Each class begins with 1-month course, starting in July each year in 
Atlanta. 
As part of the on-the-job training, 
learning (CALs). 
Service 
officers are required to complete core activities of 
* * * 
The program is modeled after a traditional medical residency program where much of 
the education occurs through experimental learning. Thus, the program not only 
organizes training for the officers, but a major contribution of the program (and work of the 
officers) is providing service to the and our public health partners. 
The petitioner's acceptance into the program through the Fellowship constitutes his 
admission to a two-year post-graduate ''training program" of on-the-job learning for health 
professionals interested in the practice of applied epidemiology rather than a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. The record contains no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's fellowship "job offer'' is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award in the field of endeavor. Moreover, the AAO notes that 
competition for the petitioner's fellowship was limited to recent graduates seeking to further 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
their training and on-the-job experience in the practice of applied epidemiology. Experienced 
epidemiologists already practicing in the field do not seek or compete for such postgraduate training 
positions. In addition, while the petitioner submitted information from the _ about its 
program, this material is not sufficient to demonstrate the national or international recognition ofthe 
petitioner's fellowship. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, 
No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely 
on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's 
awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to 
establish every element of this criterion. There is no documentary evidence on record demonstrating 
that the petitioner's specific fellowship was recognized beyond the at a level 
commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
The petitioner submitted pa_ge ~ identifying 
him among five The petitioner also submitted page 12 of the 
Conference program book that provides the following information about the 
The Alumni Association will sponsor the : , to 
be presented during the Conference. This award recognizes the presentation that best 
exemplifies the effective application of a combined epidemiological and laboratory 
approach to an investigation. Presentations for which the first author is a current 
and at least one coauthor is a laboratorian (CDC, state health department, or other) 
may be considered for the award. 
The preceding information indicates that consideration for the 
is limited to presentations first-authored by "a current " As such, this award reflects 
internal recognition for current participants in the training program rather than a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a March 4, 2011 memorandum from 
Congratulations! Your abstract 
has been selected as a finalist for the 
This is an honor in itself, since abstracts of 
exceptional quality were submitted for consideration for the 
Selection of the award winner is conducted in two stages. During the abstract selection 
meeting of the five finalists were selected 
using the evaluation criteria published with the Call for Abstracts. During the 
Conference, the will be selected based on overall quality and clarity 
of the presentation that best exemplifies the effective application of a combined 
epidemiologic and laboratory approach to an investi_gation. Announcement of the winner of 
the 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's receipt of 
"nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." In this instance, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner actually won the Selection as one of "five finalists" is 
not a prize or an award and does not fall within the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3)(i). Regardless, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
is recognized beyond the presenting organization at a level commensurate with a nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a July 9, 2012 "Honor Award Certificate" presented to him by the 
for exemplary national 
leadership in the surveillance and prevention ofhealthcare-associated bloodstream infections." The 
preceding certificate was presented to the petitioner subsequent to the petition's February 22, 2012 
filing date. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider an award received by the petitioner after February 22, 2012 as evidence to establish his 
eligibility. Regardless, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's "Honor 
Award Certificate" equates to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate dated May 5, 2009 stating that he was "elected a member of 
the md "is duly enrolled in this honorary public health 
society." The petitioner also submitted an April 16, 2009 congratulatory letter from 
stating: 
The 
and I are delighted to 
inform you that you have been elected to membership in the Society. 
* * * 
The Chapter elects students, faculty, and alumni nominated by their peers for their scholarly 
achievements and contributions to the advancement of public health. Only students meeting 
the highest academic 
standards and endorsed by the faculty are eligible for membership, and 
only those demonstrating a potential for significant contribution to the field of public health 
(b)(6)
.Page ':J 
are elected to the Society. Election to membership in recognizes not only 
merit but also encourages further excellence and devotion to public health. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted general information about the 
from its website. The submitted information states that 
expanded to niore than 70 chapters throughout the world and has more than 14,000 members from 
top echelons of graduate schools and programs of public health, as well as the public health 
community." 
The petitioner also submitted the bylaws for the _ _ _ 
"Article VI: Membership" states: 
There shall be five categories of membership in L.. ____ _. 
A. Student Membership 
Student membership shall be selected by the Membership Committee. Members elected 
from the student body shall be approved at the annual meeting. They shall be chosen with 
due regard to their scholarly attainments and honorary character of In order to 
be eligible for membership in in this category, the student s a : 
• Possess a bachelor's degree or a degree equivalent to or 
higher than the bachelor's 
degree, and 
• Have completed a full year of academic courses or be in the last rating period leading 
to an advanced degree in public health, and 
• Intend, so far as can be ascertained, to follow a career in hygiene or public health. 
A maximum often percent (10%) of graduating students shall be elected to membership in 
any one year. Those elected shall be from the upper twenty-five percent (25%) in class 
standing and have demonstrated real or potential qualities of leadership in public health. The 
total student group to be considered for membership shall only include persons who are 
candidates or who have received an advanced degree in public health during that current 
academic year. Nomination of student candidates shall be made only by faculty of the 
School who have previously been inducted into 
The term "advanced degree in public health" as used in these By-laws, refers to the 
following degrees or their equivalents: Master of Public Health, Doctor of Public Health, 
Master of Science, Master of Health Science, Doctor of Science and Doctor of Philosophy 
B. Faculty Membership 
Faculty membership shall be selected by the Membership Committee. The selection 
committee will give particular attention to outstanding public health performance in 
scholarship, teaching, research and the quality of publications. The total number of faculty 
members elected in any one year may be up to three percent (3%) of the full-time faculty. 
C. Alumni Membership 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
Alumni membership shall be selected by the Membership Committee. may 
elect a maximum of ten graduated from the School whose work in the practice of public 
health would serve as a model for future graduates of the School for membership each year. 
D. Honorary Membership 
may nominate honorary members to be elected by a unanimous vote of the 
National Council. This membership shall be limited and conferred only upon persons 
possessing exceptional qualifications who have attained a meritorious distinction in the field 
ofPublic Health. 
E. Emeriti Membership 
Faculty or Alumni members shall receive emeriti status after 40 years of membership. 
Emeriti members shall have no obligation to pay annual membership dues. All emeriti 
members shall continue to receive the annual mailings and shall be encouraged to partake in 
the Chapter's activities. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits copies of the _ Constitution and By-Laws that 
repeat the same requirements as indicated in the above bylaws. The AAO notes 
that the petitioner was admitted to the as a student 
member. The AAO is not persuaded that possessing a bachelor's degree or a degree equivalent to or 
higher than the bachelor's degree; having completed a full year of academic courses or being in the 
last rating period leading to an advanced degree in public health; intending to follow a career in 
hygiene or public health; limiting membership to a maximum of ten percent of graduating students 
in any one year; requiring that students be from the upper twenty-five percent in class standing; and 
demonstrating real or potential qualities of leadership in public health equate to outstanding 
achievements. The legislative history makes clear that Congress intended this classification for those 
with a career of acclaimed work rather than those whose achievements are primarily academic in 
nature. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted 
documentary evidence showing that the Membership Committee of the 
is comprised of "recognized national or international experts" in the field. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act. Significantly, not all ofthe 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as 
when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of 
"letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has 
meaning . In a different context, federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to interpret significance 
from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 
06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 
3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the 
petitioner were to establish that his membership in the neets the elements of 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
this regulatory criterion, which he has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the petitioner's membership in more than one association 
requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related contributions 
"of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 
1995) quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support from his superiors discussing his work. 
states: 
[The petitioner] has served with distinction in my branch at the 
since July 2010. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] achievements include an investigation of. through 
organ transplants, a rare but fatal infection and the results of his work should help prevent 
infections in the future. Following his investigation, rthe petitioner] prepared a report 
for the and 
internationally recognized agency publication. 
The report was reproduced in (circulation of 
several hundred thousand) and the He has been 
invited to give several presentations of his work including a scientific poster at the 
which was designated a poster of distinction in recognition of the 
outstanding quality. 
comments that the petitioner prepared a report for _ 
but he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work has 
significantly impacted the field or otherwise equates to a scientific contribution of major 
significance in the field. In addition, while asserts that the petitioner gave a presentation 
at the 'which was designated a poster of distinction," the petitioner 
failed to submit documentary evidence from the conference organizers showing that his work 
received the "poster of distinction" designation. Going on record without supporting documentary 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Regardless, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
the petitioner's presented findings rise to the level of original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
states: 
The investigation in in which [the petitioner] played a critical role, has 
led to significant scientific publications and presentations. First, working with several 
collaborators, [the petitioner] prepared a brief report _ 
on the preliminary findings of the investigation, which was 
nublished in the September 17, 2010 issue of the _ 
major vehicle for dissemination of public health reports. The report was 
subsequently reproduced in and the He was 
also the lead author on two scientific abstracts detailing the outcome of the field 
investigation. He has subsequently presented the findings of the investigation at the annual 
and, at the invitation of the state health department, the 
~===:::::;;;;- His poster presentation at the 2011 
_ was designated a poster of distinction in recognition of the outstanding 
quality of his work. 
With regard to comments regarding the petitioner's published and 
presented work, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly 
articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence 
relating to or even 
meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this 
criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from 
one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 
To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Publications and 
presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. In 2010, the Kazarian court 
reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not 
demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption 
that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance; 
rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
The petitioner submitted citation evidence reflecting an aggregate of twelve cites to his report entitled 
' that was 
published in . _ Three of the submitted citations post-date the 
petition's February 22, 2012 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at 
the time offiling the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider cites to the petitioner's work occurring after February 22, 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
2012 as evidence to establish his eligibility. Regardless, merely submitting documentation 
reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited by others in their published work is insufficient 
to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner's 
work has been of "major significance in the field." Generally, the number of citations is reflective 
of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken some interest to the petitioner's 
work. It is not, however, an automatic indicator that the petitioner's work has been of major 
significance in the field. The petitioner has not established that the moderate number of 
independent cites to his article at the time of filing is indicative of an original scientific 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
states: 
I have known [the petitionerl for a year and a half and have been his suEervisor while he has 
worked on a roject as in the Division of 
[The petitioner] played a critical role in the data analysis, interpretation, and publication of 
the results from a novel national survey on the availability of occupational exposure 
managemen L services for bloodbome pathogens among outpatient dialysis centers 
across the United States. 
* * * 
This survey is the first of its kind to be reported in the medical literature and [the petitioner] 
made significant contributions to the project. He, alone, analyzed the survey data, and 
offered meaningful, accurate, and appropriate interpretations. His effort on this project has 
led to both presentations and anticipated publication. His work was recognized by division 
leadership and selected to be presented at the 
in March 2011. His presentation, ' 
received excellent feedback from fellow and 
personnel. e IS tbe first author on the manuscript reporting this survey pro_1ect's 
results, and just recently submitted it for publication to the 
Ultimately, this work has identified a demographic of dialysis centers that could 
improve OEM service availability, and may assist with future targeted interventions in 
guideline recommendation dissemination. 
states that the petitioner's presentation entitled ' _ 
tc received excellent feedback from fellow 
and Jersonnel after being presented at the However, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work is recognized beyond the such 
that his work constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to one's research institution or employer. In addition, 
states that a manuscript reporting the survey project's results was recently submitted for 
publication in the but the AAO notes that the article was not 
actually published until June 28, 2012. Thus, any impact resulting from this publication post-dates 
the filing of the petition. also comments that that petitioner's work "could improve OEM 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
service availability" and "may assist with future targeted interventions in guideline recommendation 
dissemination," but the record contains no evidence showing 
that the petitioner's work was already 
of major significance in the field at the time of filing the petition. As previously discussed, 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
states: 
Over the past two years, I have been [the petitioner's] secondary supervisor in the Division 
of 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has also played a critical role during outbreak investigations conducted by 
our division. This includes an investigation of an outbreak of hepatitis C virus infections at 
an outpatient dialysis facility in May 2011 that was led by [the petitioner].... The team 
made recommendations to the facility and the state health department that, once 
implemented, led to the successful interruption of disease transmission within the facility. 
[The petitioner's] thorough investigation served to inform state and federal public health 
officials about infection control lapses that are continuing to occur in some dialysis 
facilities, providing valuable feedback on efforts at both 
, , ~ guidelines. Two very concrete examples of 
this are products that [the petitioner] has been leading the development of following his 
investigation. The first is a tool to guide environmental disinfection practices in dialysis 
units and the second is an algorithm to help dialysis providers understand how to manage 
hepatitis C virus screening results. In his outbreak investigation, [the petitioner] identified 
lapses in environmental disinfection practices and failures to properly manage patients' 
hepatitis C screening results. Unfortunately, these are issues that are not unique to this 
dialysis facility. Working with experts at [the petitioner] led the development of a 
checklist tool that will be promoted nationally to improve disinfection practices in all 
dialysis centers. He also drafted a step-by-step guide to translate expectations around 
hepatitis C screening of patients for dialysis providers. This algorithm will be incorporated 
into an invited manuscript on this topic led by [the petitioner] in a nephrology journal. 
comments that the petitioner developed 
· --and' 
;--~--====-----: 
but fails to provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's tool and algorithm have already been implemented by dialysis centers at a level 
indicative of scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
In addition to serving a key role in the projects highlighted above, [the petitioner] has given 
several important presentations on healthcare-associated infections, the most recent of which 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
took place during the where he shared the findings of the 
Earlier in the year, he gave a two-hour presentation 
at a 1 on the prevention of healthcare-associated 
infections in dialysis centers to a large audience of dialysis and other healthcare providers. 
indicates that the petitioner has presented his work at the and 
~ L on the prevention of healthcare-associated infections in 
dialysis centers, but there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's original work 
has been extensively applied in the healthcare industry, that his presented findings were heavily 
cited by independent researchers, or that his work otherwise equated to original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner's field, like most science, is 
research-driven, and there would be little point in presenting or publishing findings that did not add 
to the general pool of knowledge in the field. As previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions not only be original but of "major 
significance" in the field. 
states: 
I have had the pleasure of being [the petitioner's] primary supervisor during his time as an 
present. 
* * * 
First, between August and October 2010, he was the co-lead of the investigation of cases of 
organ a rare but frequently fatal infection 
with case-fatality rates reported to be as high as 95%. . . . During the investigation, [the 
petitioner] coordinated the flow of information across all collaborators on the investigation. 
He was also deployed to Tucson and Phoenix, Arizona, from September 
during which time he conducted the primary outbreak investigation .... ·He also performed 
a rapid review of the clinical records of the cases to better characterize their pattern of 
clinical presentation and progression. . . . On returning to Atlanta, he conducted a detailed 
review and abstraction of hundreds of highly-technical pages of clinical and laboratory 
records for the donor and the infected organ recipients, to identify commonalities in their 
clinical, radiologic and laboratory records, all of which would aid in early identification and 
intervention on future cases of the disease. The hallmark of this investigation, however, was 
that two of the four organ recipients - in Utah and California- who showed laboratory 
evidence of exposure to the organism were successfully treated 
with a preemptive antimicrobial regimen recommended by thereby potentially 
averting additional fatalities in the transplant cluster. 
* * * 
During the investigation, [the petitioner] prepared a brief report titled 
" which was published m the 
September 17, 2010 issue of the major 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
vehicle for the dissemination of timely scientific information to the public. 
subsequently reproduced in and the 
The report was 
and has 
been cited in several scientific articles discussing the role of ______ _ as an 
emerging pathogen transmissible during organ transplantation. 
According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, his report entitled 
had been cited to only nine 
times as of the petition's February 22, 2012 filing date. The petitioner has not established that this 
moderate level of citation is indicative of a scientific contribution of major significance in the field. 
While the petitioner performed admirably during the course of the investigation and helped identify 
two additional organ recipients who were exposed to there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's original work was of major significance in the 
field. Although the petitioner's postgraduate research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any 
research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and 
attention from the scientific community. Any graduate thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to 
be accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every epidemiologist who performs 
original investigations that add to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution 
of "major significance" to the field as a whole. 
further states: 
[The petitioner] was also the lead author on two scientific abstracts discussing the findings 
of the investigations, both of which were highly rated at the conferences where they were 
presented. The first, titled 
," was a finalist for the prestigious 
and was presented at the The second abstract, titled 
was presented as a poster during the 2011 . __j a major 
international conference of stakeholders in the transplant community with over a thousand 
participants. The presentation was designated a poster of distinction by the conference 
organizers in recognition of the significance and outstanding quality of the investigation. 
comments that the petitioner has presented his findings at the L in 
April2011 and at the: The AAO notes that many professional 
fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and to 
network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional 
associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such 
events, however, does not equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. There 
is no documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's specific conference presentations 
are frequently cited by other epidemiology researchers, have significantly impacted the field, or 
otherwise rise to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. While presentation of 
the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may be 
acknowledged as original contributions based on their selection for presentation, the AAO is not 
persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's work at various scientific meetings are sufficient 
evidence establishing that his work is of "major significance" to the field as a whole and not limited 
to the engagements in which his work was presented. The petitioner has failed to establish, for 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
example, the impact or influence of his presentations beyond those in attendance so as to establish 
that his work was of major significance in the field. 
continues: 
[The petitioner's] second field investigation involved a 
_ at a special pediatric facilitv in Rhode Island. From January 28 -
February 9, 2011, [the petitioner] was part of a that was deployed to Providence, 
Rhode Island, to assist the affected health facility and state public health officials with 
investigating the cases and interrupting transmission of the disease. During this 
investigation, he was designated a secondary (deputy to the lead field investigator) and was 
specifically assigned to conduct a thorough assessment of infection control practices at the 
facility, with a view to identifying deficiencies ann nrov1n1nu rP.r.nmmP.noations to interrupt 
transmission of the implicated disease organism, _ _ As a result of 
the infection control assessment and resulting recommendations, the facility was able to 
institute measures which led to the interruption of the disease outbreak. [The petitioner] is 
the second author on a scientific article describing: the outbreak. which is currently 
undergoing editorial review by the" 
comments that the petitioner conducted a thorough assessment of infection control 
practices at the ~ _ , but . fails to provide specific examples 
of how the petitioner's work has substantially impacted the me ical field or otherwise constitutes an 
original scientific contribution of major significance in the field. In addition, states that 
the petitioner "is the second author on a scientific article describing the outbreak, which is currently 
undergoing editorial review by the journal." Thus, any impact 
resulting from this publication post-dates the filing of the petition. As previously discussed, 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 17 5. 
further states: 
Third. in Mav 2011. fthe petitioner] was again the 
at an outpatient dialysis facility in Atlanta, Georgia. . . . [The 
petitioner] led a field team off that investigated the cases at the facility ... 
Following the conclusion of the field investigation, [the petitioner] developed a 
remediation plan for the facility which resulted in termination of the outbreak. The findings 
of this investigation were presented during the session on 
indicates that the petitioner led a field team of that investigated 
at an outpatient dialysis facility in Atlanta, but fails to 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work impacted the healthcare industry at 
a level indicative of scientific contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, 
states that the findings of the etitioner's investigation "were presented during the session on 
Thus, any impact 
resulting from this presentation post-dates the filing of the petition. As previously discussed, 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 1 7 5. 
continues: 
[The petitioner] played a critical and primary role analyzing data on the national survey of 
occupational exposure management policies for bloodborne-pathogens in U.S. dialysis 
facilities. In March 2011, he presented preliminary findings of survey at the weekly seminar 
of He subsequently led efforts to prepare a 
scientific article discussing the findings of the survey, working under the supervision of 
a national expert on issues relating to occupational health and safety in 
healthcare settings. He is the first author on the manuscript, titled ' 
a leading journal in nephrology. [The petitioner] 
has also played a critical role in analyzing a large surveillance data set to assess trends in 
emergency department visits for adverse events due to antibiotics used in treating 
an emerging infection of major public health significance. A manuscript from this project, 
on which he is also the first author, will be submitted to the 
asserts that the petitioner "played a critical and primary role analyzing data on the 
national 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's results 
have already been applied throughout the healthcare industry or were otherwise of major 
significance in the field. In addition, states that the petitioner authored an article that 
~ ~ 
and another article that 
There is no evidence showing that either of the preceding articles had been published at the time of 
filing on February 22, 2012. Thus, any impact resulting from their publication post-dates the filing 
of the petition. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
further states: 
fThe petitioner] was deployed to for one month between 
, to assist on a critical humanitarian response to the famine and drought affecting parts 
of During his deployment, he assisted officials of the 
in evaluating a supplementary feeding program for children 
attected bv the amme, most of whom were from displaced populations along the border of 
He expertly recruited, coordinated, and supervised a large number of 
local contractors to assist in following a cohort of 1500 children that were enrolled in the 
evaluation, the majority of whom were in hard to reach areas with major security concerns. 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
His performance on the assignment was stellar and he received a strong letter of 
commendation from the leadership of the branch at lie was seconded to during the 
assignment. 
comments on the petitioner's deployment to [n 2011, but fails to 
explain how the petitioner's work was both original and ot maJor significance in the field. There is 
no documentary evidence in the record showing that the petitioner's work in evaluating the feeding 
program equated to an original scientific contribution of major significance in the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered by both 
the director and the AAO. The AAO notes that the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are 
all from his superiors at the institutions where he has studied and worked. While such letters are 
important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by 
themselves establish the impact of his work beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
!d. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition 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 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the 
references' 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 are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would 
expect of an epidemiologist who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's original work has been unusually 
influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions 
of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory: criterion. The 
petitioner submitted evidence showing that he coauthored a single report entitled ' 
that was originally published 
Ill ~~==~~====----~------~~==~----~~=---~=== The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires the petitioner's "authorship of scholarly articles in 
the field" [emphasis added] in the plural. As previously discussed, the use of the plural is consistent 
with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. As the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of the petitioner's 
authorshi of scholarly "articles," his authorship of one report entitled 
' that had appeared in three different 
professional publications at the time of filing the petition does not meet the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
0 anneaL the netitioner submits an article he coauthored entitled 
that was in .1 The -preceding article was published m . subsequent to the 
petition's February 22, 2012 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider a scholarly article published by the petitioner after 
February 22, 2012 as evidence to establish his eligibility. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language 
requirements this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
The record adequately demonstrates that the has a distinguished reputation. The next issue to 
be determined is whether the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for the The 
petitioner submitted a letter from stating: 
In his role as an - - [the petitioner] played a 
critical role during the investigation of a 
_ a rare but frequently fatal infection, in 
As an · [the petitioner] plays a critical role in the organization at 
are often assigned to conduct field investigations of disease outbreaks within 
and outside the United States. Their work has a great impact on domestic and global public 
health outcomes, often with significant policy implications. In August 2010, following 
reports of possible transmission oL through organ transplants, fthe 
petitioner] was assigned to work with my office in assisting the. 
with a field investigation. Working under the supervision of senior scientists at 
including myself, [the petitioner] co-led the field investigation of what was only the 
second recognized cluster of transplant-transmitted in the United States. While 
in the field, he collaborated with state health officials in assisting the affected transplant 
centers, offering technical guidance on clinical identification and management of the 
disease. The investigation led to important recommendations regarding the prevention of 
which often has a fatal outcome in infected 
patients. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from stating: 
The petitioner] played a critical role in the data analysis, interpretation, and publication of 
the results from a novel national survey on the availability of occupational exposure 
management services for bloodbome pathogens among outpatient dialysis centers 
across the United States. 
(b)(6)Page 21 
* * * 
This survey is the first of its kind to be reported in the medical literature and [the petitioner] 
made significant contributions to the project. He, alone, analyzed the survey data, and 
offered meaningful, accurate, and appropriate interpretations. His effort on this project has 
led to both presentations and anticipated publication. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from stating: 
Over the nast two vearsJ have been rthe oetitioner'sl secondary suoervisor in the 
In his role as an assigned to our 
division, [the petitioner] has played a critical role on several projects and assignments that 
are of major significance to the field of public health, notably in the area of preventing the 
transmission ofhealthcare-associated infections in dialysis settings. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has ... played a critical role during outbreak investigations conducted by 
our division. This includes an investigation of an outbreak of hepatitis C virus infections at 
an outpatient dialysis facility in May 2011 that was led by [the petitioner]. . . . [The 
petitioner] led a during a two-week field investigation at the facility. . . . The 
team made recommendations to the facility and the state health department that, once 
implemented, led to the successful interruption of disease transmission within the facility. 
The preceding references assert that the petitioner "played a critical role" at the ut merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. 
Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 civ 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from ~tating: 
During his assignment as an [the petitioner] participated in three 
emergent public health outbreak investigations that interrupted disease transmission, 
decreased the morbidity and/or mortality associated with the outbreak, and improved the 
health of those involved. In two of these investigations, he was also designated the lead 
field investigator for the agency. 
* * * 
rThe petitioner 1 has recently been promoted to the position of in the 
In his new role, he will JOln 
to 
(b)(6)
Page 22 
provide technical assistance to the the 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a July 25, 2012 letter from Human Resources stating that his 
appointment to position of would be effective on August 12, 
2012. The petitioner's performance in the role of w post-dates the petition's 
filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing the 
petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider a role performed by the 
petitioner after February 22, 2012 as evidence to establish his eligibility. 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien is 
responsible for the success or standing of the organization. While the petitioner performed admirably 
on the projects to which he was assigned, there is no evidence demonstrating that his subordinate 
role in the 
~ _ For example, there is no organizational chart 
or other evidence documenting where the petitioner's position fell within the general 
hierarchy of the epidemiologists employed by the The AAO notes that the petitioner's role as 
an involved "competency-based training in both the classroom and through on-the-job 
learning activities." The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his temporary post-graduate 
appointment differentiated him from the numerous other being trained by the let 
alone the 
executive leadership. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not differentiate him from 
the other officers and manaeerial staff so as to demonstrate his leading role, and fails establish 
that he was responsible for the success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"critical role." 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence 
that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished "organizations or 
establishments" in the plural. As previously discussed, the use of the plural is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, even if 
the petitioner were to submit documentary evidence showing that his role as an meets 
the elements of this regulatory criterion, which he has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one 
distinguished organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)Page 23 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) ''that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination.3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. Id. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The AAO may deny an application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements 
of the law even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, at 145 (noting that the AAO 
conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions offact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a fmal merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of the Act; section 204(b) of 
the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003) ; 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(t)(3)(iii) 
(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole 
authoritv with the iurisdiction to decide visa petitions).