dismissed EB-1A Case: Gastroenterology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
n7 , 1.3- . ,\, 'p- TC COPY 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the 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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Wn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 6 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's ultimate finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
Section 203(b) of the 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. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 4 204.5(h)(2). Thus, while counsel asserts that the director erred in comparing the 
petitioner's achievements with those of his references, the director's concerns are valid. The gap 
between the petitioner's achievements and those of his references demonstrates that the top of the 
beneficiary's field is considerably higher than the level he has achieved and, at the very least, is 
consistent with the director's ultimate finding based on an analysis of the evidence under the regulatory 
criteria. 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, 
that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
gastroenterologist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the only district court decision to address the proper standard for this 
classification is Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), which found that a petitioner 
need only demonstrate that he meets at least three criteria; no additional evidence of the alien's caliber 
is required. First, this decision is not the only district court to review legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) or USCIS decisions pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. For 
example, the following district court decisions deal with this classification: Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008); Braga v. USCIS, 2009 WL 604888 (C.D. Cal. 
July 6, 2007); Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 "9 (S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning 
Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005); Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 
2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) and Russell v. INS, 2001 WL 1 1055 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4,2001). 
Even if Buletini were the only district court decision addressing the classification sought, in contrast to 
the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO is not 
bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the 
same district. See Matter ofK-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 71 5 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 7 19. 
Regardless, the court in Buletini acknowledged that "the examiner must evaluate the quality, 
including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." 
Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. Thus, the director did not err in considering whether the evidence 
submitted to meet a given criterion was sufficiently indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim, the statutory standard in this matter. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 
at "9; All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 at * 1 1. 
Counsel also cites a September 23, 2005 memorandum from William R. Yates, Associate Director of 
Operations, USCIS, asserting that the classification sought in this matter is "comparable" to Schedule 
A, Group I1 designation, whose requirements are set forth at 20 C.F.R. $ 656.1 5(d). Counsel notes that 
Page 4 
the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved petition filed seeking Schedule A, Group I1 designation, 
receipt number SRC-07-042-51668.' While some of the regulatory criteria for that designation are 
similar to those set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), an alien need only meet two criteria for such 
designation whereas an alien must meet at least three criteria for classification pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Thus, the standards are not identical. As such, the approval of the petition in 
behalf of the petitioner seeking Schedule A, Group I1 designation does not mandate approval of the 
instant petition. 
Regardless, the AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not 
been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter 
ofchurch Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Given the above considerations, we will now consider the evidence submitted. The petitioner has 
submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner has submitted several academic awards, scholarships and evidence that his video case 
study was one of 23 six-minute or less programs selected for the "Best Cases of 2005" Video Forum, 
part of the Digestive Disease Week conference sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal 
Endoscopy (ASGE). According to the materials submitted by the petitioner, programs "can 
demonstrate accepted techniques or show difficult, interesting cases, complications or innovations 
within the field of endoscopy." In addition, all submissions "are judged according to content, 
appropriateness as teaching and instructional material, current interest and audio visual quality." 
Notably, beyond this selection, ASGE awards an Audiovisual Award covering longer pieces designed 
for teaching purposes. A single awardee and two runner ups are presented with awards during the 
forum. 
' Schedule A, Group I1 designation was requested in conjunction with a petition seeking a lesser 
classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. We note that the petitioner already had a petition in 
his behalf, supported by a labor certification, under the same classification approved with an earlier priority 
date, LIN-04-240-5 1275. 
2 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
- Chef of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Denver Health 
Medical Center where the petitioner works, asserting that the petitioner was the first endoscopist to 
present a video of the placement of a surgical stent to relieve bile duct pressure, that the petitioner's 
presentation was one of 173 selected for presentation and that selection "is a significant honor that is 
reserved for the top physicians in our field." 
Director of the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases at the Stanford 
University School of Medicine, asserts that Digestive Disease Week is the preeminent conference for 
doctors focusin on astrointestinal issues and that the video forum is one of the highlights of the 
conference. further asserts that only "the most creative and accomplished physicians are 
selected for this honor and selection is clearly indicative of a recognized respected physician." 
The director concluded that student awards and fellowships could not serve to meet this criterion. The 
director further concluded that ASGE "prize" could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel 
asserts generally that the director erred in failing to consider the petitioner's accomplishments while a 
student. Regarding this criterion in ~articular. counsel asserts that the director erred in failing to 
u 
consider thestategents of and 
 The petitioner submits a page from a 
Digestive Disease Week newsletter with a statement from the conference's Annual Scientific Program 
Committee Chair, - ~r. asserts that the Video Forum "is similar to the 
research or abstract sessions in that these cases are submitted and selected based on the quality and 
importance of each presentation." (Emphasis added.) 
While we do not question the sincerity or credibility of 
 and, the official 
materials from ~igktive Disease week, including those submitted on appeal, clearly dimonstrate that, 
while physicians may aspire to have their videos selected, selection for the video forum is far more 
comparable to selection for publication or presentation than an award or prize. Specifically, unlike the 
Audio Visual Award, which includes a single awardee, 23 of 70 video programs were selected for 
presentation at the forum. While these video programs are peer reviewed, peer review does not 
distinguish this video forum from journal publication or conference presentations in general, which are 
also peer reviewed. 
Finally, while we concur with counsel that achievements while a student are not precluded from 
consideration, they must still demonstrate that the alien is one of the small percentage that has risen to 
the top of his field. At issue is not that the petitioner was a student when he won these awards, but that 
the awards themselves were limited to students. Such awards, for which the most experienced and 
renowned members of the field do not compete, cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
3 
 While not a significant discrepancy, the official materials reveal 23 videos were selected for the forum. 
Page 6 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On appeal, counsel does not contest the director's finding that the petitioner's professional 
memberships and membership in Sigma Xi do not serve to meet this criterion and we concur with the 
director. Sigma Xi, while requiring a "noteworthy achievement" defines such an achievement as 
including first authorship on two published articles. We will not narrow the petitioner's field to 
medical students. 
 Significantly, publication is expected of college and university faculty. 
 See 
www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos066.htm. Thus, we are not persuaded that authorship of an article alone is an 
outstanding achievement. Thus, we affirm the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that an appearance on a local television 
program where the petitioner commented on the health of Fidel Castro did not constitute published 
material about the petitioner. We concur with the director and note that a local television station is not 
major media. Thus, we affirm the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted electronic mail messages from 
 one of the petitioner's 
conference presentation collaborators, requesting that the petitioner review manuscripts for 
- 
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and expressing ap reciation for prior manuscript reviews. In response to 
the director's request for additional evidence, asserts that the petitioner was selected to 
review manuscripts based on his expertise in the field and that Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a top 
journal in the petitioner's field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's participation in the widespread peer-review process did not 
reflect sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel cites Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 123 1, for the proposition 
that the director applied too strict a burden in requiring evidence that the petitioner's judging 
responsibilities set him apart from other members of the field. Specifically, the court stated that the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) only requires evidence of participation as a judge, not evidence 
that such participation was the result of having extraordinary ability. As stated above, the AAO is not 
bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the 
same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. at 719. The reasoning underlying a district judge's 
Page 7 
decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the analysis 
does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. 
Regardless, we do not find it violates the reasoning in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 123 1, to examine the 
evidence submitted as to whether it is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. The court in Buletini was concerned that an alien would need to first demonstrate 
"extraordinary ability" in order to meet this criterion. We are not following this "circular exercise" 
that troubled the court. Rather, we are looking at the type of review responsibilities inherent to the 
field and what review responsibilities might be indicative of or at least consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 at *9; All Pro Cleaning 
Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 at *11 (finding that the reasoning in Buletini does not 
preclude any analysis of the significance of an alien's judging responsibilities). 
First, the petitioner was requested to review manuscripts by his own collaborator. While we do not 
question own expertise in selecting the petitioner, it remains that being selected by a 
collaborator to perform anonymous peer reviews is not indicative of any recognition beyond the 
petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues. Further, we cannot ignore that medical journals are peer 
reviewed and rely on many research physicians to review submitted manuscripts. Thus, peer review is 
not necessarily indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an 
unusually large number of manuscripts, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from 
 President-elect of ASGE and the 
petitioner's former collaborator at the University of Michigan, inviting the petitioner to join the 
Membership Committee of the ASGE. The letter, dated April 6, 2007, postdates the filing of the 
petition and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 
$0 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1971). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The director acknowledged the submission of letters attesting to the petitioner's work in the field, but 
concluded that contributions of major significance should be verifiable by objective documentary 
evidence in existence irrespective of whether a petition is contemplated. On appeal, counsel asserts that 
the petitioner submitted a large amount of documentary evidence and quotes from several reference 
letters. 
Page 8 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research or presenting case studies that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in 
the field. 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. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been 
reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to 
gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. 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). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts 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. 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 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)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, we concur with 
the director that evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight 
than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with 
sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting 
that acclaim. 
first discusses the petitioner's 1992 published article while an undergraduate student at 
Knox College. 
 acknowledges that this work is outside the petitioner's current area of 
expertise. Moreover, the record lacks a letter from the petitioner's faculty coauthors at Knox College 
discussing the petitioner's role in this research. Given the petitioner's undergraduate status, an 
explanation of the petitioner's role on this project would be necessary to bolster the claim that we 
should consider this research as a contribution of major significance by the petitioner. 
further asserts that while pursuing his medical degree as part of a prestigious joint 
M.D./Ph.D. program, the petitioner focused on therapeutic endoscopy. According to - the 
petitioner, by specializing in ultrasound tip endoscopes to visualize structures outside of the intestinal 
tract walls, "developed novel diagnostic and surgical methods that have revolutionized 
Page 9 
gastroenterology and the treatment and diagnosis of many gastrointestinal disorders." Specifically, 
while a resident and fellow at the University of Michigan, the petitioner developed a method whereby 
he introduced a safe acid that boosts the effectiveness of the breath test for H. Pylori, a bacterium with 
the potential to cause ulcers. Previously, the breath test was only effective when patients were able to 
forego their ulcer medication for two weeks. asserts that this discovery has had a 
tremendous impact of the lives of ulcer sufferers throughout the country. This work was published in 
the American Journal of Gastroenterology and, as of the date of filing, had been cited 15 times. 
Director of the Digestive Diseases at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, 
asserts that his "first exposure" to the petitioner's work was the petitioner's novel method for 
improving the breath test for H. Pylori. 
 reiterates 
 assertion that this 
"discovery had a tremendous impact on the lives of ulcer sufferers." does not assert, 
however, that the University of Mississippi routinely uses the petitioner's method or that he teaches this 
method to his own medical students. Similarly,, an associate professor at Tufts 
University, asserts that he became aware of the petitioner through his work on H. Pylori, praises this 
work, but does not su est that he himself has been impacted by this work such that he now uses or 
teaches this method. an associate professor at the University of California, San 
Francisco, provides similar statements. Significantly, the conclusion of the petitioner's article on H. 
Pylori states only that his "observations suggest it may be possible to design a UBT protocol that will 
remain accurate in the face of PPI therapy." None of the references reconcile their assertions about the 
impact of this procedure with the tentative conclusion expressed in the article itself. 
At Denver Health, according to 
 the petitioner pioneered an innovative procedure for 
relieving bile duct pressure using an ultrasound tip endoscope that can image the bile duct through the 
wall of the small intestine and bypass the blockage through an incision and placement of a steni. Dr. 
explains that, to his knowledge, the petitioner was the first endoscopist to resent a video of 
the procedure, which was the video presented at Digestive Disease Week 2005. b also 
praises this work but once again does not suggest that this procedure has been adopted at the University 
of Mississippi. Similarly, asserts that she was present for the petitioner's presentation at 
Digestive Diseases Week and praises the petitioner's procedure without suggesting that her institution 
now performs this procedure. Other references imply that the very selection of the petitioner's 
procedure for presentation at the video forum demonstrates it is a contribution of major significance. 
While the selection of the video demonstrates a belief in its potential and the presentation itself clearly 
boosted awareness of the procedure, without evidence that the procedure is actually being adopted by 
institutions nationwide, we will not presume that it is a contribution of major significance. 
Finally, 
 discusses the petitioner's current research. As this research has yet to produce 
results, however, it cannot be considered a contribution of major significance. 
We acknowledge that the record contains evidence that the petitioner has presented his work at several 
conferences, mostly as poster presentations, and has published some of his work in peer-reviewed 
journals. Without evidence of the impact of these presentations and articles, however, the petition~r 
cannot demonstrate that they serve to meet this criterion. Significantly, the publication of scholarly 
articles is a separate criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(vi). A presumption that evidence 
relating to that criterion also serves as conclusive evidence to meet this criterion would undermine the 
regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three separate criteria and the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence. 
The petitioner's most cited article is his 1992 article, published while he was an undergraduate student. 
As stated above, the record does not contain a letter from faculty at Knox College explaining the 
petitioner's role with this research. Moreover, it does not relate to his current area of specialty. The 
petitioner's article on H. Pylori has been cited 15 times. Given the conclusion in this article that it only 
suggests a possible methodology for improving the breath test and the failure of any of the references to 
acknowledge using this methodology, we are not persuaded that the citation record alone is sufficient to 
demonstrate that this work constitutes a contribution of major significance. The record does not 
demonstrate that the petitioner's remaining publication and presentations have been cited more than 
once. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has taught a fellow's course for ASGE. The record reveals, 
however, that the course outline was supplied to him. Thus, it does not appear that he was teaching his 
own methods. The record does not establish whether the petitioner taught his own methods in his 
Management of Benign Biliary Disease at the fellow's course at the University of Colorado. Even if he 
did, this course does not demonstrate the petitioner's impact beyond the institution where he works. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, without evidence that the petitioner's 
methodology has been widely adopted, we cannot conclude that it constitutes a contribution of major 
significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted copies of published articles he authored in 1992, 2001 and 2003. He also 
submitted evidence that his 1992 article had been cited 37 times, his 200 1 article 15 times and his 2003 
article one time. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that he had presented case studies at eight 
conferences, in most cases in poster form. The most recent presentation was in November 2005. The 
director expressed concern that the articles all date from when the petitioner was a student and implied 
that the petitioner had not documented his citation record. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's request for additional evidence did not specifl that any 
evidence was lacking for this criterion, that the petitioner did submit evidence of citations and that the 
petitioner's status as a student should not preclude consideration of the articles. 
The evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or at least consistent with 
national or international acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. We concur with 
counsel that articles published while a student should not be automatically precluded from 
consideration and that the director failed to consider the citation evidence submitted. While student 
work is not precluded from consideration, the petitioner must demonstrate sustained acclaim in his field 
of expertise, gastroenterology. The petitioner's most cited article was authored before the petitioner 
was even admitted to medical school and appears to bear no relation to the petitioner's current practice 
of endoscopy. Nevertheless, given the petitioner's continued presentation of case studies while 
primarily a practicing physician and his selection to present his video case study for Digestive Disease 
Week in 2005, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that this criterion applies to the arts 
and, as such, does not apply to the petitioner's field. We concur with the director that Digestive 
Disease Week's video forum was not an artistic exhibition or showcase and, thus. the "dis~lav" of the 
petitioner's video at this forum cannot serve to meet this criterion. As stated by , the 
selection for inclusion in the video forum is comparable to the presentation of research abstracts and, 
thus, is better considered under the scholarly articles criterion. In light of the above, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner must 
establish that the role for which he was selected was leading or critical and that he performed this role 
for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on his selection to serve as one of 
12 faculty members of ASGE's 2005 West Region First Year Fellow's Endoscopy Course. One of two 
course directors was 
 the petitioner's collaborator at the University of Colorado. 
 The 
petitioner subsequently served as a faculty member of the 2006 Rocky Mountain Biliary Endoscopy 
Fellow's Program at the University of Colorado. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated how the above roles differentiate him 
"from other fellows holding similar appointments." The director further concluded that the record 
lacked research grants recognizing the petitioner as a primary investigator. On appeal, counsel asserts 
that the director mistakenly considered the petitioner as an attendee, and not a faculty member, for the 
above fellow's courses. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner did submit evidence that he is a 
primary investigator for a General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) protocol, ultimately evaluated by 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Finally, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion 
through his role on the membership committee for ASGE. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner served as faculty for the ASGE and Rocky Mountain Biliary 
Endoscopy courses. That said, the record does not establish that the petitioner's role was more leading 
or critical than the remaining faculty members. Moreover, a course is not an organization or 
establishment. The petitioner has not established that every faculty member of the West Region course 
plays a leading or critical role for ASGE as a whole or that the faculty members of the course at the 
University of Colorado play a leading or critical role for the university. In addition, we cannot ignore 
that the petitioner's collaborator was the course director of both courses and that the 2006 course took 
place at the institution where the petitioner is employed. Thus, these faculty positions are not indicative 
of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Rather, they demonstrate his recognition among 
his immediate circle of colleagues. 
We acknowledge that the record contains a December 12, 2003 letter from GCRC advising that his 
protocol was approved. While the director implied that a primary investigator could meet this criterion 
based solely on being a primary investigator, we disagree. All research is funded, usually by 
competitive grants from distinguished entities. While the primary investigator may play a leading or 
critical role for that particular research project, we are not persuaded that every individual research 
project is an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation as mandated by the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Nor does every primary investigator of a 
project funded by a distinguished entity play a leading or critical role for that entity, which typically 
funds numerous research projects. Ultimately, as funding is inherent to research, we are not persuaded 
that every primary investigator who receives funding can be said to enjoy national or international 
acclaim. 
Finally, as stated above, the petitioner was not invited to join ASGE's membership committee until 
after the date of filing. Thus, this evidence does not relate to the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of 
filing and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
gastroenterologist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a gastroenterologist, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.