dismissed EB-1A Case: Gastroenterology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 23, 2024 In Re: 32915563 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a physician, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that he meets at least of three of the ten evidentiary criteria set forth in the regulations 
and therefore did not satisfy the initial eligibility requirements for this classification. 1 The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 2 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act if they have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; they seek to enter 
United States to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United 
States has substantial prospective benefits for the country. 
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 two-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time 
1 The Director initially denied the petition on March 20, 2023, and the Petitioner appealed that decision to our office. On 
August 30, 2023, we remanded the matter to the Director for further consideration and issuance of a new decision. 
2 We decline the Petitioner 's request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(2). 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then they must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391-392 (5th Cir. 2022); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a board-certified gastroenterologist specializing in pancreatology, with 22 years of 
experience in medicine and medical research. He seeks to continue his work in this field in the United 
States. 
The Petitioner does not claim to qualify for extraordinary ability classification based on a one-time 
achievement. Accordingly, he must submit evidence meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) by providing evidence that he has authored scholarly articles in 
Gastroenterology and other professional publications. The Director further concluded that the 
Petitioner demonstrated he has commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field and therefore 
satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The record supports the Director's conclusion that 
the Petitioner satisfied these two criteria. 
The Director also addressed the Petitioner's claim that he could satisfy the criteria related to his receipt 
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes, published materials about him and 
his work, and original contributions of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
(iii) and (v). However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets any of 
these criteria. Because the Director determined the Petitioner satisfied only two of the ten criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), their decision did not include a final merits determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's discussion of the original contributions criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) contains numerous errors of law and fact, including the same errors that 
previously resulted in our decision to remand this matter to the Director for entry of a new decision. 
The Petitioner does not address or contest the Director's conclusions that he did not satisfy the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of 0-
R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 
2012)). Therefore, we will limit our discussion to the original contributions criterion. 3 
3 The Petitioner has not claimed eligibility under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iv), (vii), (viii), and (x). 
2 
In our prior remand decision, we observed that the Director's analysis of this criterion contained 
several errors. First, we noted that the first decision, issued on March 20, 2023, misstated the 
Petitioner's medical specialty and included a list of exhibits that did not correspond to the documents 
he provided. Second, we observed that the decision overlooked relevant evidence that the Petitioner 
did provide in support of this criterion. Finally, we determined that the Director applied an improper 
standard by concluding that the Petitioner failed to provide "extensive documentation" in support of 
the original contributions criterion, a requirement that is not stated in the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that, although the Director issued a new request for evidence (RFE) 
on remand and a new decision, they "made no attempts to correct the record or consider the other 
recommendations made by the AAO." We agree with the Petitioner that the Director's new decision 
repeats certain errors. The first paragraph of the Director's discussion of the original contributions 
criterion appears to have been copied verbatim from the prior decision issued on March 20, 2023, and 
includes the same references to evidence that the Petitioner did not submit. 4 The decision also includes 
an observation that the record does not contain "extensive documentation" showing that the 
Petitioner's original contributions have been of major significance. However, in both the new RFE 
issued on remand and in the decision before us on appeal, the Director discussed the Petitioner's 
evidence and explained why it was deemed insufficient to demonstrate his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Accordingly, because the Director adequately explained the specific reasons for denial, we do not find 
it necessary to remand this matter to the Director for a second time and will instead address the 
Petitioner's eligibility under the original contributions criterion. For the reasons provided below, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
In evaluating evidence submitted under the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
we must determine whether a given petitioner's contributions are original and whether they are of major 
significance in the field. Relevant evidence may include published materials about the significance of 
the person's original work; testimonials, letters and affidavits about the person's original work; 
documentation that the original work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field; 
and patents or licenses deriving from the work or evidence of its commercial use. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (discussing the evaluation of initial 
evidence of extraordinary ability under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). The evidence should 
demonstrate, for example, contributions that have been widely implemented in the field, have 
significantly impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
In his initial letter in support of the petition, the Petitioner stated that his research work in the field of 
pancreatology "was able to establish the benefit of early treatment with a new medicine for acutely ill 
pancreatic disease patients" noting that "until recently there was no definite treatment of this disease 
except for supportive care." The Petitioner indicated that his 2015 article published in 
Gastroenterology was recognized by the journal's editors as a significant contribution and that 
4 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that, based on the Director's statements, he believes the record of proceedings includes 
evidence submitted by another individual and that certain evidence he submitted may be missing. We have reviewed the 
record in its totality and confirm that no unrelated evidence has been erroneously incorporated into the record. Further, all 
supporting evidence referenced by the Petitioner in his supporting statements is accounted for in the record of proceedings. 
3 
"multiple other commentaries by experts lauded his achievement." Finally, he stated that "multiple 
national and international researchers have confirmed the significance" of this work, and that it has 
"led to a major change in the way we treat patients with acute pancreatitis early in the course of 
disease." 
The Petitioner provided his publication and citation record from Google Scholar indicating that he had 
received 119 cumulative citations to his body of published work, which included 14 articles published 
in professional journals. The fact that the Petitioner has published articles that other researchers have 
referenced is not, by itself: indicative of a contribution of major significance. Therefore, publications 
are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." Rather, the appropriate analysis is to determine whether a petitioner has shown that his 
research findings, factoring in citations and other corroborating evidence, have been considered 
important at a level consistent with the plain language of this criterion. 
The evidence reflects that the Petitioner's most cited article was published in Gastroenterology in 
2015. The article, titled 
________ had been cited 58 at times as of February 2023, when the Petitioner filed 
the petition. The Petitioner also submitted evidence that two of his articles, published in 2012 and 
2019, had been cited 22 and 19 times, respectively. 
Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research 
or other written work. While the number of citations will be considered in evaluating whether an 
individual publication has received recognition commensurate with a contribution of major 
significance in the field, it is the Petitioner's burden to articulate and establish the significance or 
relevance of the citations to his articles. Such significance may be shown, for example, by submitting 
evidence demonstrating that the citation count is unusually high in the field, or by demonstrating that 
the number of citations is comparable to that received by other articles the field views as majorly 
significant. 
In support of his claim that his published work has been highly cited, the Petitioner provided an article 
titled "Global status of acute pancreatitis research in the last 20 years," which was published in 
Medicine in 2022. The Petitioner stated that this study reveals that "the number of citations to 
pancreatic studies ( overall and per study) were many folds lower than studies focusing on the subjects 
relating to General medicine gastroenterology." He also asserted that by extrapolating this data and 
making "data adjustments," his citations "could have been 10 times higher if [his] area of primary 
interest was in General Gastroenterology." In addition, the Petitioner, citing his own research on the 
limited number of pancreatology specialists in the United States, emphasized that "since overall 
research studies in highly specialized fields are less common ... the citation count stays low even if 
the work is of similar or ( even) greater significance compared to more general subject studies." Based 
on these claims, he concluded that any perception that his work is not highly cited should be attributed 
to the lack of researchers with deep knowledge of the field. 
In the RFE issued on remand, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's assertion that the submitted 
Medicine study supports his claim that his own research, particularly his 2015 article in 
Gastroenterology, has been highly cited. However, the Director pointed to a statistic stated in the 
Medicine article, indicating that "for the 20-year time period studied, the average citation rate for the 
4 
United States was 27. 71." The Director acknowledged that the cumulative number of citations 
received by the Petitioner's 2015 article was greater than this average but concluded that the evidence 
was insufficient to establish that this published work had been recognized as a medical or scientific 
contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner maintains that the Director overlooked the fact that the study published in Medicine 
included research conducted in the last 20 years. He contends that his Gastroenterology article "did 
not have enough years to make [the] comparison fair." He further asserts that "if the statistics are 
analyzed in depth and year by year citations after publication are examined, the citation count for my 
study is in the top 2 percentile." 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that the average citation data provided in the Medicine 
article did not allow for a "fair" comparison with his own citation record. While this claim may be 
valid, it is the Petitioner's burden to provide probative evidence that will allow for a meaningful 
comparison if he seeks to rely on his citation record as evidence to support this criterion. 
Here, the information contained in the Medicine study does not provide adequate support for the 
Petitioner's claim that the number of citations his 2015 Gastroenterology article received is "in the 
top 2 percentile" when compared to other research articles on acute pancreatitis published in 2015. 
He does not explain or document what statistics he "analyzed in depth" to reach this conclusion. Nor 
does the Medicine article provide support for the Petitioner's claim that his number of citations would 
ten times higher ifhe had published similarly significant work in a broader field of specialization. The 
stated purpose of the study of acute pancreatitis research published in Medicine was not to identify the 
most highly cited articles in this field based on their date of publication or to compare citation rates in 
this field to those in other fields of medical research. Rather, according to its authors, "[t]he study 
was conducted to determine the global status of [ acute pancreatitis] research" with a geographic focus 
on a selected set of 20 countries. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not sufficiently supported his claim that the 58 citations his 
Gastroenterology article received between its publication in 2015 and the filing of this petition in 2023 
are indicative of his research being recognized as a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Further, we note that highly cited publications alone are generally not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), absent evidence that they were of "major significance," as a citation history does not 
provide sufficient context to demonstrate the impact or importance of a given researcher's work in the 
field. 
We also acknowledge that the Petitioner provided evidence that Gastroenterology is a highly ranked 
journal within this medical field based on its impact factor. A publication's high ranking or impact 
factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not demonstrate the influence of 
any individual researcher within the field. That context must be provided by other evidence in the 
record. 
To establish the significance of citations to his research, the Petitioner also emphasized that "multiple 
national and international researchers have confirmed the significance" of his published work. In 
support of this claim, he provided a self-compiled list of 12 "selected recent research studies and 
articles where my original research was cited and significance of my work discussed," published 
5 
between 2016 and 2022. He did not, however, provide copies of the articles and we are therefore 
unable to review them or assess whether they support the Petitioner's claims. We agree with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner's self-prepared list of claimed notable citations to his work 
does not demonstrate how other researchers in his field have recognized the major significance of his 
research in the pancreatology or gastroenterology field. 
With respect to his 2015 article published in Gastroenterology, the record establishes that it was 
featured in the journal's editorial section, and that several other professional publications in the field 
published short articles that acknowledged the novelty of the Petitioner's pilot study, summarized the 
study's findings and noted the study's conclusion that the results "warranted further study in larger 
trials." This evidence recognizes the novelty of the Petitioner's research and the field's interest in the 
findings of his study at the time of the article's publication. However, without further context, this 
evidence alone does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's research findings have been widely 
implemented in the field or establish that his contribution has had an impact on further medical 
research or clinical practice at a level commensurate with "major significance." 
As noted, the Petitioner stated at the time of filing that his research "led to a major change in the way 
we treat patients with acute pancreatitis early in the course of disease." While a medical research 
contribution with a demonstrated impact on clinical practice could qualify as an original contribution 
of major significance, the record here, including the evidence discussed above, does not corroborate 
the Petitioner's claim that his published research has resulted in a "major change" in patient treatment 
protocols. He has not provided examples of citations to his work that would support this assertion and 
the citation count alone is not an indicator that the Petitioner's work has resulted in the claimed impact 
in his field. The published articles highlighting the Petitioner's 2015 Gastroenterology article mention 
the possibility of further study of the efficacy o for severe acute pancreatitis 
in larger trials; they do not conclude that the Petitioner's work had already resulted in a change in 
treatment protocols for patients with acute pancreatitis. 
We note that detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of a 
person's contributions may provide valuable context for evaluating a claimed original contribution of 
major significance. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). Here, the Petitioner 
has opted to rely on his own assertions regarding the nature and significance of his contributions in 
his field, even after the Director acknowledged his assertions and advised that he should submit 
"independent objective evidence" that his contributions have significantly influenced his field, 
including, among other items, detailed letters from experts. We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's own assertions regarding the impact of his work do not carry the same evidentiary weight 
or provide the same valuable context for evaluating his contributions. While the submitted evidence 
reflects the field's interest in his work, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support his claim that 
his research has directly resulted in a "major change" in how physicians treat patients with acute 
pancreatitis, nor does it establish that his research contributions are otherwise recognized as having 
major significance in the field. 
After reviewing the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, individually and collectively, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated he has made original contributions of major significance 
in the field and has therefore not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international 
acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7