dismissed EB-1A Case: Healthcare Delivery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-W-.1-I-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the tield of healthcare delivery, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This tirst 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 that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner satisfied the required three of ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets three of the evidentiary criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 Staies. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the tield 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 or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
.
Matter of A-W-.1-1-
this evidence , then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that ~eets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including item s such as awards, 
published material in certain media , and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself: establish eligibility for this 
classi tication. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two -par t review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a tina! merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) ; R!jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), a.ff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012 ); Matter f?lChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the " truth is to be determined not by the quantit y of evidence alone but by its quality " and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for rele vance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the to tality 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 demo nstra tes that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the tield of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of 
doing business as Since the Petiti oner has not established that he 
has received a major , internationally recognized award, he must sat isfy at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Direct or held that the Petitioner met the 
criteria for published material about him at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and that he played a leading 
role for under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), but that the evidence did not establish that he met 
the criteria for original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and a high 
salary or signiticantly high remuneration at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he meets the original contributions: of major signiticance criteria and has estab lished 
eligibility for this classificati on 
1
• For the reasons. discussed below , the Petitioner has not established 
that he satisfies at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Published material about lhe alien in prr~lessional or major trade publica/ions or 
olher major media. relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which classffication is 
sought . Such evidence shall include the title. date, and author <?lthe material , and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
1 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), pertaining to a high salary or 
significantly high remuneration he does not continue to do so on appeal, nor does the 'record support a finding that he 
meets that criterion. We will therefore not further address that criterion in this decision. 
2 
.
Mauer of A-W-.J-1-
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the requiremen ts of this criterion. The record 
includes several articles in major media that are abo ut the Petitioner and his co-founding of 
Accordingl y, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitione r meets the plain language 
of this criterion . 
Evid ence of the alien 's original scientifi c, scholarly . artiStiC. athlet ic. or business­
relat ed contributions o_fmajor significan ce in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(3)(v) 
In order to meet the requir ements of this criterion, the Petit ioner must demonstrate that he has 
already made a contribution, that the contribution is original and in one 
of the specified areas, and 
that the contribution has risen to the level of major significanc e in the field as a who le, rather .than 
being limited to a single organization. Contributions of major significance connote that the 
Petitioner' s work has significantly impacted the field. ·See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp . 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013). 
The Petiti oner, in his brief, first asserts that the Direct or did not give sufficie nt evidentiary ·weight to 
referen ce letter s submitted with the petition , and did not recog nize that some of those lette rs had not 
been solicited by the Petition er for purpose s of this petition . It is noted that the letter from 
is dated May 11 , 201 7, the date which the record indicates 
had its official ribbon-cutting ceremony, and that other letters were written in 2015 in support of an 
application by to establish an outpatient partial hospitali zation program (PHP) . · While the 
Director cited to Matter of Caron International , 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. I 988) for the 
proposition that solicited reference letters are not presumptive evidence of eligibi lity, eac h of the 
letters submitted were analyzed in his decision , and the Director noted that many of them predated 
the filing. · 
Upon review , we agree with the Director's determination that these letters do not demo nstrate that 
the Petition er, through has already made a contribution of major significance to the field of 
healthcare delivery as a whole. Rather , they focus on the impact that will have for new 
mothers in President of states in her 
September 5, 2015 letter that " [W]e believe that proposed program wi ll be an 
important step in improving care in -New York being a state that lacks any specific 
type of postpartum treatment center." wrote that "wi II 
be of great benefit to women who are suffering from perinatal mood disorders in my District and in 
New York State as a whole ." In addition , while 
m Rhode Island, states that "is the first freesta
ndin g perinata l 
in the U.S. ," her letter and others indicate that in severa l other states, 
hospitals are providing the same type of services. The record does not estab lish t he healthcare 
benefits provided to the residents of constitute. a contribution of major significance 
on the field of heal the are. 
The Pet itioner also asserts on appeal that the Director ignored the evidence o f media articles which 
he submitted with the petition, and points s pecifically to an article in While the 
3 
.
Maller of A-W-J-1-
Petitioner asserts that this article shows his influence in the treatment of postpartum depression in 
the United States, the section of the article that the Petitioner focuses on states only that he wanted to 
establish a program similar to that in Australia. Some of the articles (and some of the reference 
letters) note that , as a PHP providing care for mother s of newborn s tha t is independ ent of a hospital 
or health-care system, is a "first-of-its-kind " business. However , originality or innovation is 
only one aspect of the requirements under this criterion, and the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
through th~ submitted evidence that his contribution has led to a significant impact to the field at this 
point. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the impact of busine ss model has gone beyo nd the local 
level, as stated by the Director in his decision , and points to a research collaboration entered into 
with However, the agreement indicates that the 
purpose of the collaboration is to study the effectiveness of model for treating postpartum 
depression and related disorders, and does not demonstrate that it has led to a more wide-spread 
implementation. The Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peJformed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director found that the Petitioner also met the requirements of this criterion. The evidence 
verifies the Petitioner's role as co-founder and CEO of as well as distinguished 
reputation. We therefore agree with the Director' s finding that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . Thus, we need not fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits 
determination. 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 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Mauer of A-W-.1-1-, ID# 1242714 (AAO May 30, 2018) 
'4