dismissed EB-1A Case: Gastroenterology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 23, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher, seeks classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability" in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition, finding the Petitioner met two of ten 
regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), when at least three are required. Although 
he indicated in a request for evidence (RFE) that the Petitioner met a third criterion, the published 
material criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), he did not make this finding in his decision. 
Concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), the Director did not proceed to a final merits determination. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director erred in 
not considering the entire record in a final merits determination after finding that the Petitioner met at 
least three of ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In addition, he states 
that he has demonstrated his extraordinary ability as a researcher in the field of gastroenterology. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in his field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states: 
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, 
Matter of T-S-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If he does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), ajj'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its· quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context oLthe totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, who received a doctor of medicine degree in Syria, is a researcher in the field of 
gastroenterology. He has authored articles that are published in professional publications. While the 
Petitioner did not explicitly note which criteria he satisfied, the Director found that he offered 
documentation that met two of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Because the 
Director also noted in the RFE that the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to a third criterion, in this 
case, we will consider the entire record in a final merits determination. In a final merits determination, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification. Specifically, he 
has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or submitted extensive documentation 
confirming that his achievements have been recognized in the field. Accordingly, we will dismiss the 
appeal. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-S-
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner must present initial evidence of either 
I) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or 2) materials that meet at least three of ten 
regulatory criteria. In this case, the Petitioner has not maintained or shown that he is the recipient of 
a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least 
three of the ten types of documentation listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner has 
submitted evidence that is relevant to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion because of his receipt of (1) the 
(2) the 
(3) a educational 
grant, (4) a and (5) a $5,000 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he 
meets this criterion, as he has not shown that any of the abovementioned achievements, which he 
characterized as "prestigious grants and awards," are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted proof of his receipt of the accolades, he has not demonstrated 
that the awards or grants are recognized beyond the issuing entities on a national or international 
level. The record does not illustrate that the awards and grants are open to many in the field. For 
example, the Petitioner's educational grant and scholarship are awards 
available only to students of particular academic programs. As they exclude scientists who have 
completed their education and who are not in those academic programs, the Petitioner has not 
established that these grants or scholarships are recognized nationally or internationally for 
excellence in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown that his other achievements are recognized beyond the 
entities issuing the awards. The Director noted in his decision that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
his poster award was recognized beyond the annual 
meeting. The Petitioner presented two reference letters from M.D., a professor of 
medicine at the In both letters, referenced the 
Petitioner's poster award, but did not elaborate on the prestige or recognition of the award nationally 
or internationally. Likewise, M.D., a professor of medicine at the 
1 We have reviewed all of the Petitioner's evidence and will address those criteria he indicates he meets or for which he 
has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
2 The Petitioner also stated that he received research funding rrom the He has not submitted 
corroborating evidence. Regardless , he has not shown that funding for a future research project honors or recognizes 
past excellence, as required under the plain language of this criterion . 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-S-
indicated that the Petitioner won the poster award at "a major national 
meeting," but did not illustrate that the award was either nationally or internationally recognized. 
and M.D., the chief of the Ga~troenterology and Hepatology Department at 
the referenced the Petitioner's receipt of a research grant and a 
research award from Neither, however, o.ffered additional 
information on the grant or award, or presented proof that the accolades are recognized nationally or 
internationally. In addition, research grants do not usually honor or recognize past excellence. 
Rather, their purposes are to fund a scientist's work. 
The record has limited material on the Petitioner's awards and grants. The Petitioner has not 
presented evidence on the competitiveness or selectiveness of the awards or grants. Similarly, the 
record does not contain material on who may be considered for the awards or grants, or the selection 
criteria. There is also no indication that the Petitioner's receipt of the awards or grants garnered any 
media attention. Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted insufficient proof to satisfy the plain 
language requirements of this 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 states that he meets this criterion because he is a member of the 
According to the website, it "is the leading 
organization of scientists and health care professionals committed to preventing and curing liver 
disease." The Petitioner presented an online printout indicating that he joined the on 
September 1, 2015, after he filed his petition in August 2015. A petitioner must demonstrate 
eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the 
proposition that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition."). As he joined the association after he submitted the petition, he may not rely on his 
membership to meet this criterion. Furthermore, the record lacks sufficient evidence on 
how one becomes an member. There is no documentation demonstrating that it requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated in his curriculum vitae that he is a member of the 
and the He has not, however, submitted 
documentation verifying his membership in either of these organizations. Moreover, he has not 
established that either requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence 
showing he satisfies the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-S-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
I 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Although in his RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner met this criterion, the record does not 
support this conclusion, and the Director did not make this finding in his decision. The Petitioner 
submitted a printout from indicating that interviewed 
him about his article entitled 
verified in his letter that interviewed 
the Petitioner regarding his paper. The Petitioner provided materials from and 
which reported on his research, and from that referenced one of his 
published articles . . While these documents appeared in professional publications, they were about 
his research and mentioned his scholarly articles. They were, however, not about him, as required 
under the plain language of the criterion. The Petitioner has not shown the published materials 
discussed or were focused on him. They did not offer information on his educational, training or 
employment history, or other facts specifically about him. Rather, the published materials 
summarized and explained his findings. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies the plain language requirements of 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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
In his decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record, however, 
does not support this determination. The Petitioner has submitted a number of email 
correspondences inviting him to review manuscripts for the 
and the But he has not offered 
documentation illustrating that he accepted the invitations and actually reviewed the manuscripts. In 
his curriculum vitae, while he listed these two publications as "Journals [that have] requested my 
review"; he did not indicate that he actually served as a reviewer. No other evidence in the record, 
including reference letters, indicated that he had participated as a judge of others' work. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient proof establishing that he satisfies the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner stated that his "research has been instrumental in the development of cutting edge 
clinical treatments in Gastroenterology that have led to dramatic and far reaching impacts in this 
field of medicine." Relying primarily on reference letters, his publication, citation and presentation 
record, the Petitioner maintains that he has made original scientific contributions of major 
significance in gastroenterology. The evidence, however, does not support this conclusion. . . . 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-S-
While the Petitioner has offered reference letters indicating that his research projects are original, he 
has not provided persuasive evidence of their significance in the field. As this issue relates to the 
quality of the evidence provided, in this case, we will address it in the final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record supports his finding. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles published in professional publications, 
such as and 
Accordingly, he has met this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
While the Petitioner has not met at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), in 
this case, we will review the entire record in a final merits determination. Specifically, we evaluate 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, making him one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. If so, he has met the requisite burden of proof and established eligibility for visa 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We determine that the Petitioner 
has not shown his eligibility. 
The documents we consider in the final merits analysis may include achievements that are not directly 
applicable to one of the criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and comparable evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Also, a petitioner may request that submissions that do not meet any of 
the enumerated criteri_a, and do not qualify as comparable evidence, be considered within a final merits 
analysis. In a final merits determination, we analyze the petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the 
totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at1119-20. 
In this case, the Petitioner's writing and publishing record, which meets the authorship of scholarly 
articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), does not exhibit national or international acclaim, nor 
reveal a high level of recognition in his field. Authoring scholarly articles is inherent in a scientific 
researcher's occupation. More indicative of national or international acclaim is the field's response to a 
petitioner's articles. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner has authored a number of 
published scholarly articles. According to a printout from that the Petitioner offered, 
four of his articles have been cited in other scientific work, while most have not garnered any citation. 
His most-cited article received three citations, and his remaining three articles had one or two citations 
each. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his authorship and publication record is indicative of his 
national or international acclaim in the field. The Petitioner maintained that the citation frequency did 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-S-
not reflect the actual significance of his research because all his major papers were published recently. 
As discussed, however, a petitioner must show eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing, 
and may not secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future events, such as additional 
citationslto, or potential impact of, his research. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49; Jzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. Anticipated citations, which are not yet materialized, do 
not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the classification. 
Authorship of scholarly articles is a frequent undertaking among research scientists. The Petitioner's 
work, which in this case resulted in four articles cited by other scientists, does not confirm that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim or that he is at the very top of his field. The Petitioner's 
writing and publishing activities, which earned a limited number of citations from other scientists, are 
not commensurate with one who is within the top percentage or who has extraordinary ability in his 
field. In addition, while the Petitioner has presented at conferences, such professional activities are 
common in the scientific field. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his participation in conferences 
is indicative of his national or international acclaim. 
Moreover, although the Petitioner has engaged in original research, he has not shown that the impact of 
his findings has resulted in sustained national or international acclaim or recognition. Rather, the 
Petitioner's references reflected that his findings have provided insights that may become significant in 
the future. For example, although M.D., the chief of the Gastroenterology and 
Hepatology Department at the stated that the Petitioner "is an 
extraordinary researcher with multiple major contributions to gastroenterology and hepatology," he did 
not identify these contributions. The record does not illustrate that others in the field have widely cited 
to the Petitioner's articles or have frequently incorporated his studies in their own research or practice. 
Instead, "expect[ ed]" the Petitioner's research, specifically as relating to the use of 
probiotics in liver transplant, "to gamer great admiration and frequent citations." also 
discussed the potential impacts of the Petitioner's other projects, but he did not point to specific 
evidence indicating that the work has already received 
broad recognition, such that it confirms the 
Petitioner's status at the very top of his field. 
M.D., an associate editor for the who collaborated with the Petitioner 
on a number of projects, noted the Petitioner's potential in the field. discussed the 
Petitioner's research in two reference letters, however, did not indicate that the Petitioner's findings 
have been widely accepted and applied, such that they might render the Petitioner one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. In his September 2015 letter, stated 
that "[f]uture research will use" the Petitioner's findings; that his discovery relating to the use of 
probiotics "will decrease hospital stay[ s ], post [liver] transplant complications[,] and decrease the cost 
of liver transplants;" and that, because of his findings, "patients with liver cirrhosis will be spared from 
receiving unnecessary transfusion[s] with unnecessary side effect[s] and cost[s]." 
maintained that he "expect[ed] a dramatic change in the transplant guidelines based on [the Petitioner's] 
findings." But the record does not reflect that predictions have already materialized. 
who mentored and collaborated with the Petitioner, also described the Petitioner's work. 
Like 
he explained the potential of the Petitioner's research. To establish eligibility for this 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-S-
classification, however, the documentation must show that, at the time of filing the petition, the 
Petitioner has already reached the very top of his field. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49; Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. The potential impact of his research, however, is 
insufficient to illustrate his extraordinary ability. 
also noted that, since the Petitioner's paper on the use of metal stents in malignant biliary 
obstruction in gastrointestinal endoscopy, "there is a move toward using metal stents even for patients 
with short life expectancy because [the Petitioner] proved that the metal stents are associated with less 
obstruction rate and better quality of life even at the short term." however, does not 
explain the extent of this changed practice within the field. The record also does not show that this 
change was due to the Petitioner's research. offered in his August 2015 letter that the 
"implementation of [the Petitioner's] important findings resulted in not only improvement in patents' 
quality of life but also a decrease in the total cost and the total number of endoscopic re-interventions." 
But he did not provide information on the scope of the implementation in the field. For example, 
neither nor specified that the adoption of the Petitioner's findings has occurred in a 
certain medical facility, a particular region, or the field. Without additional information, the Petitioner 
has not shown he has risen to the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner and several of his references maintain that his contributions are significant because they 
led to the publication of scholarly articles, conference papers, and participation and presentations in 
conferences. Publication and presentation illustrate that the research is original and worthy of 
dissemination in the field. The Petitioner presented materials showing that his paper published in 
had been downloaded and viewed online. This evidence 
corroborates that he has disseminated his scientific findings. To demonstrate impact, however, he must 
submit documentation on the field's reaction after dissemination. The Petitioner has not shown that 
there has been wide acceptance of his research findings in the field, that many scientists in the field have 
relied on his research in their own studies, or that they have deemed his work important in their own 
projects. As discussed, four of the Petitioner's scholarly articles garnered between one to three citations 
in other scientific publications. Such limited response is not indicative of the Petitioner's status as being 
on the very top in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner's research received some media attention: a publication interviewed him 
about his research and online sources summarized or referenced his work. However, he has not 
established that the extent of media attention and coverage demonstrates that he has achieved national 
or international acclaim. The limited reporting on his studies, although indicative of the field's general 
interest,. does. not illustrate that he has reached the very top of his field. The record also lacks 
information on the field's response after the reports. Without more, the published materials do not 
substantiate the Petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner's accomplishments include his original research projects, educational achievements, 
professional membership, writing and publishing activities, participation and presentation in 
conferences, receipt of awards and gr~ts, an,d invitations to review scientific manuscripts. These 
achievements in the aggregate confirm that he is an able researcher who has worked on a number of 
8 
Matter of T-S-
projects and gained the respect of his circle of colleagues, who believe he is capable of accomplishing 
more in the field. They do not, however, demonstrate that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim or is already one of the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. A review of the record in the aggregate does not confirm that he has 
distinguished himself 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. He, therefore, has 
not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013 ). The Petitioner in this case has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that he is 
an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-S-, ID# 17572 (AAO Aug. 23, 2016) 
( 
9