dismissed EB-1A Case: Health Science Research

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 0 2 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 
FILE: 
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. § l153( b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCfiONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, tiling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
���� 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 as a researcher, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A), which makes visas available to aliens 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 determined that the petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is 
one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, nor has he demonstrated 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, 
we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
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 10151 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordin ary 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) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
-The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); 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 users examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including his position as reviewer for scholarly journals, to establish 
that he meets this criterion. 
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in his field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. Contributions of major significance connotes that the petitioner's work has 
significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 
135-36. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several letters from experts in the field. The director determined that the 
petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 
director did not fully consider all of the information in the letters, quoting only a single paragraph "out 
of the context" from a limited number of the eleven expert letters. Within the appellate brief, the 
petitioner identifies eight letters that he claims are from independent sources that provide specific 
examples of the petitioner's qualifying contributions. The petitioner also reiterates his response to the 
RFE in which he identifies evidence other than the letters relevant to this criterion which the director did 
not address. We will discuss all of this evidence below. 
The January 15, 2014 letter from Professor and Chair of the Department of 
Behavioral and Community Health at the . reflects that he is aware of the 
petitioner through his published articles. Dr. indicates that the petitioner's 
study findings have major significance and discusses the petitioner's results 
at length; however, he did not substantiate his assertion regarding the significance of these findings by 
stating the impact that these findings have already had within the petitioner's field. Under this criterion, 
it is not sufficient that the petitioner's results are original or that they have important implications. 
Instead, the petitioner must provide an explanation as well as probative evidence that his findings have 
had a significant impact within his field. Dr. claims that the petitioner's three studies reveal the 
petitioner's original contributions because the studies focus on African-Americans who are at greater 
risk for obesity in the United States. Dr. also claims that the petitioner found an important 
implication to weight management for America's youth because perceived self-weight is a stronger 
indicator than actual weight for predicting implications on public health. Although Dr. · implies 
that the petitioner's work in the field is important, he has not demonstrated how the petitioner's findings 
have already made a significant impact within the field. It is not sufficient to develop important 
conclusions without being able to show how such original findings have considerably moved the field 
forward. 
Dr. also discusses the petitioner's reviewing duties, which we have already considered above, as 
well as two other areas in which the petitioner performed research, childhood obesity and adolescent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
risk behavior. Within the first area, Dr. claims the petitioner "played a crucial role in piloting 
and evaluating a very novel family-centered obesity prevention" program. Dr. concludes that 
the petitioner's "findings systematically explained maternal empowered-parents' equal role as 
researchers and communities in designing and implementing effective obesity prevention programs 
particularly for children in low-income families. His efforts and merits provided a promising approach 
that warrants future attention in intervention design and l 
] initiatives overall." That the petitioner performed in a crucial role or that his efforts provide a 
promising approach are not sufficient to meet this criterion's requirements. The petitioner must provide 
evidence that shows the impact of his work within the field that has already been realized. A petitioner 
must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority 
date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). This evidence does not establish that, as of the priority date, the petitioner had 
contributed to his field in a significant manner as required by the regulation. Regarding the petitioner's 
studies on adolescent risk behavior, specifically teenage drinking and driving, Dr. discusses the 
importance of the issue and the petitioner's research findings without describing how these findings 
have affected the petitioner's field. 
In his January 7, 2014 letter, Professor of the Sociology Department at the 
, also discusses (1) the petitioner's accomplishments with (2) findings from the petitioner's 
three research papers, and presentation relating to teenage drinking, (3) the petitioner's high standing in 
the field, and (4) his contributions to the field. Dr. does not, however, discuss the influence such 
findings have had within the petitioner's field. 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), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990);Avyr Ass ociates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 
WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, 
Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). Dr. did characterize the petitioner as a 
pioneer in social-ecological behavioral approaches, but the petitioner's primary impact within the field 
that she identifies is that the petitioner published three works. At issue, however, is the impact of this 
work upon dissemination to the field. 
While Dr. does state that she has cited to the petitioner's work within her own research, she has 
not provided additional specific information to corroborate the assertion that the petitioner has made a 
significant impact in the field or even her own work. A review of the two articles by Dr. that the 
petitioner submitted reveals that Dr. relied on the petitioner's work as part of the background 
literature she reviewed, but does not demonstrate that his results or methods were fundamental to her 
research. In one article which examined sex -specific disparities in total and abdominal obesity 
prevalence across six ethnic-immigrant groups, Dr. cited the petitioner's work as one of four 
articles for the proposition that body weight is determined by the net difference between energy corning 
in and energy going out in addition to other factors. In a second article addressing differences 
among ethnic groups, Dr. cited the petitioner's work as one of two articles for the proposition that 
neighborhood safety and accessibility to exercise facilities have been linked to higher levels of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
In addition, Dr. does not describe the extent to which other researchers have widely relied upon the 
petitioner's findings as a foundation or basis within their own published works. Finally, Dr. states: 
"I can foresee with confidence that [the petitioner's] original contribution of major significance will 
provide policymakers, health researchers, and behavioral practitioners with solid evidence and 
guidelines in designing and implementing tailored prevention and intervention to decline teenage 
impaired driving and [the petitioner] will become a leading scholar in the field of teenage impaired 
driving research in the coming years." The petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the 
petition at the time of filing rather than relying on future prospective benefits. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), 
(12). A petition may not be approved if the petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects 
to become eligible at a subsequent time. See M atter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In a December 16, 2013 letter, . Professor and Regional Dean at the 
identifies the petitioner's contributions in the areas of teenage impaired 
driving, obesity, and physical activity. Relating to the petitioner's work in the area of teenage impaired 
driving, Dr. . indicates that the petitioner's contribution of major significance in his field is that he 
has "identified, for the first time, parental, particularly fathers', monitoring knowledge as a protective 
factor against DWI. His original contribution of major significance provides health educators and 
practitioners much needed tools to design more effective and specific interventions to reduce 
adolescents' impaired driving." Dr. also indicates that the petitioner's work "satisfies an urgent 
need to ensure adolescent safety, and his research provides clear and precise direction on achieving this 
goal." Dr. describes the petitioner's findings and their potential implications, but she has not 
explained how any institution has developed any new implementation plan based on the petitioner's 
work. For example, Dr. has not indicated that the petitioner's findings have resulted in the 
reduction of teenage impaired driving occurrences or even led to programs attempting to reduce such 
occurrences. The petitioner's proposal of a new method that has yet to produce results is not a 
contribution of major significance in the field, and is not sufficient to meet this criterion's requirements. 
Dr. _ also discusses the petitioner's work relating to obesity and physical activity indicating that his 
contribution in the field is his development of a social-ecological model that served as the basis of and 
led to original research findings regarding these issues. Inasmuch as Dr. asserts that the 
petitioner's contributions in the field are his research findings, she does not explain how his findings 
have already influenced the field with any measurable outcome. Finally, Dr. summarizes the 
petitioner's contributions in the field as his discovery of a guideline that "contributed to the field with a 
clear, concise, public health message that would encourage increased participation in physical activity 
by a largely sedentary US population and can be applied as a straightforward guideline to weight 
control practices among US women." Dr. utilizes prospective language within the above quote 
indicating that the petitioner's findings have not yet become a standard guideline within the field or has 
been implemented as guideline anywhere. Such future contributions are not qualifying under this 
criterion, as the petitioner must establish his eligibility at the time of filing rather than relying on future 
prospective benefits. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). 
Dr. further states that the petitioner's "social-ecological model provides health researchers with a 
systematical framework to truly understand African Americans' and design and implementing 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
[sic] intervention programs taking into account of [sic] all relevant factors that interplay in a realistic 
context." While she indicates why the petitioner's model is relevant and useful, Dr. _ has not 
explained how the petitioner's model has already had repercussions within the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 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. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). It can be expected that, to rise to 
the level of contributions of major significance, other experts would have already reproduced and 
confirmed the petitioner's results and applied those results in their work in a significant manner 
throughout the field. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
In his March 18, 2014 letter, 
• 
, indicates that the petitioner's research has major public 
health significance because it reveals for the first time important population-based evidence with the 
following implications: 
1. Raising high national alert about teenage impaired driving; 
2. Helping researchers, injury prevention professionals, and policymakers understand the 
mechanism of teenage impaired driving; and 
3. Facilitating the development of effective solutions to reduce impaired driving. 
Dr. also indicates that these implications "are critical because about 1/3 of fatal motor 
vehicle crashes are due to teenage drinking and driving, and motor vehicle injuries involving teenagers 
result in costs of over $30 billion yearly." Dr. continues stating: "[The petitioner's] 
original research provides crucial new data and analyses about predictors of DWI [driving while 
intoxicated] and RWI [riding with impaired drivers] that can be addressed in prevention programs to 
save lives and substantial health care cost." Dr. describes what the petitioner's research 
has revealed rather than how it has impacted the field. For example, Dr. states that the 
petitioner's research provides new information relating to predictors that "can be addressed in 
prevention programs" in a future context, but he did not provide examples that demonstrate that a 
significant number of prevention programs have incorporated the petitioner's findings, which might 
substantiate Dr. claim. Dr. does not identify how the petitioner has 
already made a significant impact in his field, which is required by this regulatory criterion. A 
petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was not qualified at the priority 
date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Dr. further discusses the petitioner's research findings related to adolescent obesity 
stating: "[The petitioner's] original findings based on a national sample and objective methodology 
have major significance because they have provided reliable new evidence that overweight adolescents 
participate in less physical activity, spend more time in sedentary activities, and are at significantly 
greater cardio-metabolic risk than normal weight adolescents. Based on [the petitioner's] research 
findings, it can be inferred that the benefits of greater physical activity and less time in sedentary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
pursuits depend in part on weight status." Dr. indicates that the petitioner's findings 
have been accepted for presentation at an international conference. That the petitioner's findings are 
new and being presented at a conference are notable, but not sufficient to demonstrate that they have 
been impactful within the field to any extent. This evidence does not establish that, as of the priority 
date, the petitioner had contributed to his field in a significant manner as required by the regulation. 
Regarding the remaining letters on record, each appears to express that the petitioner's research findings 
themselves are his contributions of major significance. However, the letters' authors do not explain 
how the petitioner's original findings have already impacted the field. Although his work may add to 
the incremental progress to the general pool of knowledge within the respective research areas, the 
letters do not describe how the petitioner has made an impact in the field at large. Not every researcher 
who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a 
contribution of major significance in the field as a whole. While the director may not have expressly 
addressed every piece of evidence, the record supports a conclusion that the director adequately 
considered the entire record. See Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); aff'd Morales v. 
INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st eir. 2000); see also Pakasi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 44, 48 (1st eir. 2009); 
Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th eir. 2009). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of cor roborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h e ir. 2009) ajf'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. users 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; users may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; 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" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue). See also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (concluding that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was 
not arbitrary and capricious). While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, 
they are most persuasive when supported. by evidence that already existed independently in the public 
sphere. 
The petitioner also claims the following contributions in the field: (1) he is a journal review board 
member; (2) he is the author of articles in professional or major trade publications and conferences; and 
(3) his published works are widely cited. The petitioner submitted evidence that he is either a review 
board member or a reviewer for scholarly journals, and that he is a reviewer of abstracts on behalf of 
conferences in the field. The petitioner has not submitted evidence that he was retained to perform peer 
review because he had made contributions of major significance in his field. Nor has the petitioner 
explained how his reviewing the work of peers constitutes a contribution of major significance in his 
field, other than to assert that highly regarded journals would not select him to review articles were it 
not for his "high level expertise and sustained international acclaim." This assertion is not persuasive 
evidence that the petitioner has made a significant impact in his field. We have already considered this 
evidence under the judging criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Meeting that criterion does not 
create a presumption that the petitioner also meets the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate how that evidence is also relevant to this 
criterion. The petitioner has not established that every researcher that an editor selects to review 
manuscripts submitted for publication, must have made or is, by completing the reviews, making 
significant contributions to their field as anticipated by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The petitioner also claims that his citation record supports his eligibility under this criterion. In 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner provided an email in which the text reflects that the 
petitioner's article titled, ' 
Among U.S. Adolescents" ranked tenth in the gs top eleven 
downloaded articles in 2013. That an article is downloaded is not tantamount to being among the 
journal's most cited articles. The petitioner did not provide evidence that the journal measures 
downloads from unique users. Therefore, the number of times the article was downloaded is not an 
accurate reflection of the field's reliance on this article. The petitioner also has not provided 
documentation reflecting the number of citations this article has received within the field. 2 
Further, the petitioner asserts his overall citation record demonstrates his contribution to the field. The 
petitioner provided both a foreign language citation record, as well as a citation record for his work that 
originates in English. Regarding the foreign language citations, the evidence establishes moderate 
citation for each article individuaily and that the petitioner's book, 
, has garnered numerous citations. The record, however, contains no information 
about the petitioner's role as a coauthor of this book or information about the subject matter of the book. 
2 Google Scholar, while not exhaustive, reflects the article titled, '' 
has received one cite. See 
=, accessed on January 13, 
2015 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
.Page 10 
Specifically, none of the petitioner's references address this work. Accordingly, the record does not 
establish whether the book is a compilation of existing evaluation methods or an original contribution to 
evaluating physical function. Therefore, while the citation level is notable, the petitioner has not 
established that the book is an original contribution of major significance. 
The petitioner also submitted each English language article he authored and articles that cite to his 
work. While the number of total citations in the aggregate is a factor, it is not the only factor to be 
considered in determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. It is also relevant how many 
citations individual articles have garnered. The record does not demonstrate that any one of the 
petitioner's articles has garnered more than moderate citation. Generally, the number of citations is 
reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken some interest in the petitioner's 
work. Moreover, the content of the citations is not indicative of a significant impact. For example, the 
citing article titled, ' 
_ _ 
,, from the September 2011 edition of reflects that 
this article's authors used a modified version of the Activity Support Scale from one of the 
petitioner's published works. This citation does not demonstrate the petitioner's work was 
influential to the citing work as the authors did not utilize the petitioner's own scale. Additionally, 
the citing article titled, "Associations among social capital, parenting for active lifestyles, and youth 
physical activity in rural families living in upstate New York" in the October 2012 edition of 
· indicates the petitioner's findings are supported by prior research. Confirming 
prior results, while important to the integrity of the field, is not indicative of original research that, 
on its own, constitutes a contribution of major significance. 
In this case, the petitioner's English language citation history is not reflective of the petitioner's 
significant impact in the field. Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work 
has been, at the individual article level, moderately cited by others in their published material is 
insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. The petitioner has not submitted persuasive 
evidence that number of the citations of the petitioner's articles are reflective of the significance of his 
work in the field or that the level of reliance by the citing authors is notable. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established how the citations of his work by others demonstrate that his published work 
significantly contributed to his field as a whole. 
Based on the foregoing analysis, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion's 
requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, to include multiple published works in the requisite publication types, 
to establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
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 his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner 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 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. As the 
petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, 
although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review 
of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level 
of expertise required for the classification sought. 3 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
users, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).