dismissed EB-1A Case: Infectious Diseases And Microbiology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
APR 1 9 2012 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case, All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be submitted 
to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee 
of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of 
the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Tha~k Q) r. t5r-
(/tr-¥' 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on October 20, 2010. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on November 5, 2010. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, specifically, in 
the field of infectious diseases and microbiology, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined that the petitioner 
has not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a brief, asserting that the director had improperly applied the holding of 
Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Counsel submitted no additional evidence. For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the petitioner meets only two of the 
ten regulatory criteria under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and that, in the final merits determination, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the 
field and she has not sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
1. 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, 
Page 3 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the 
AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this case, the AAO will focus its analysis on the final 
merits determination, as the director found that the petitioner meets three of the ten regulatory criteria 
under 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition on January 19, 2010, she claimed that the petitioner meets 
the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In response to the 
director's Request for Evidence, however, counsel did not further pursue this issue. On appeal, 
counsel has not asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. Accordingly, the AAO concludes that 
the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United 
States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 
2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the 
plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the membership in 
associations criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). In her response to the director's Request for 
Evidence, counsel again asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. The director concluded 
otherwise on October 20, 2010, finding that the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence showing 
that she is a member of any association that requires outstanding achievements of its members. On 
appeal, counsel has not challenged the director's decision as relating to this criterion. As such, the 
AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. 
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
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. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petitIOn, she did not claim that the petitIOner meets the 
participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In her response to the director's 
Request for Evidence, counsel asserted for the first time that the petitioner meets this criterion, noting 
that the petitioner "has been asked to judge the work of numerous others including senior physicians 
who do not have his [sic] expertise. [The petitioner] . . . has judged the work of physicians and 
researchers on numerous occasions .... " The director agreed that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
As such, the AAO will not further discuss this issue. 
2 Counsel does not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artlstlc, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she asserted that the petitioner meets the original 
contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). In her response to the 
director's Request for Evidence, counsel further advanced this position. The director agreed, finding 
that the petitioner has met this criterion. Upon a review of the evidence in the record, the AAO 
disagrees with the director and concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO 
conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In her initial visa petition filing, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion because: 
While working in infectious diseases during a fellowship at the Mayo 
Clinic, [the petitioner] created a specific template for her dictation on 
patients infected with the HIV virus to make the information readily 
accessible - a very important matter as these cases are one [sic] of the 
most complex to monitor efficiently and effectively with their countless 
variables. 
In her January 25, 2008 letter, an assistant professor of medicine in the 
Medical University of South C Diseases, stated that 
of the Mayo Clinic['s] HIV Clinic and recently appointed chair of the National Board 
the American Academy of HIV medicine, was so impressed by the comprehensive, all-
inclusive nature and effectiveness of the that he it be made the national standard for 
use in treating HIV patients." the Medicine Department in the 
Clinical Science Institute of the University Hospital in Galway, Ireland, made the verbatim claim about 
Dr. _ proposal in his June 27, 2008 letter. 
In her initial brief, counsel also asserted that the petitioner's research led to the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) approval of a new antibiotic, cethromycin, used to combat a previously 
antibiotic-resistant strain of pneumonia. To support this assertion, counsel filed a number of reference 
letters that mentioned the petitioner's involvement with cethromycin. 
In addition, in her response to the director's Request to Evidence, counsel contended that additional 
reference letters show that a number of "physicians have [] incorporated [the petitioner's] original 
findings into their own clinical practice [which] is indicative that clinicians throughout the United 
States have changed the way they treat their patients based on [the petitioner's] research." 
The AAO, however, is not persuaded that the evidence shows that the petitioner has made either 
original contributions or contributions of major significance in the field of infectious diseases and 
microbiology. First, counsel has provided no curriculum vitae or detailed description for any of the 
references' educational or employment background. Other than a job title, the AAO is left with little 
evidence upon which it may determine if a reference is qualified to give his or her opinion on the 
petitioner's research or its impact in the field of infectious diseases and microbiology. Moreover, the 
AAO does not have sufficient information to discern if the references' opinions are objective or 
independent, because the AAO lacks information on the association or connection between the 
petitioner and the references, or how the references come to be familiar with the petitioner or her 
research. 
There are also inconsistencies between information contained in the reference letters and evidence in 
the record. For example, in his January 18, 2008 reference letter, 
Clinical Division of Mayo Clinic's Department of Dermatology and •••••••••• 
that the petitioner's research "has been published and presented in a multitude of medical journals and 
conferences." The evidence, however, shows that the petitioner published a four-page "Concise 
Communication" in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 2002, a six-paragraph abstract of an oral 
presentation in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in 1999, and three poster presentations from 
1993 to 1999. The evidence does not show "a multitude of medical journals and conferences," as 
asserted by _ Furthermore, notwithstanding _ allusion to the exclusivity of the 
conferences ~petitioner had poster presentations, the evidence shows that the petitioner's 
1999 poster presentations were two of at least 393 poster presentations; her 1998 poster presentation 
was one of 494 poster presentations; and her 1993 poster presentation was one of an unknown number 
of poster presentations. The evidence is inconsistent with _ claim of exclusivity. As the 
petitioner has provided inconsistent documents, "it is incumbent upon [her] to resolve the 
inconsistencies by independent objective evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting 
accounts [or evidence], absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, 
will not suffice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has provided no 
such evidence to explain or reconcile the inconsistent evidence. In short, the AAO finds the 
abovementioned inconsistencies undermine the overall credibility and reliability of_ opinion 
on the petitioner and her research. 
Second, assuming arguendo that the references were qualified to make an assessment of the 
petitioner's research studies, the evidence does not show that any of her research studies constitute 
original contributions. Specifically, there is limited information on what the petitioner did that led to 
the creation of the HIV patient treatment template, the FDA approval of the new drug or research 
findings or clinical practices that other clinicians found useful. In short, there is insufficient evidence 
to show that what the petitioner did was original, such that she was the first person or one of the first 
people to have done the particular research or to have made the particular findings. 
Third, again assuming arguendo that the references were qualified to make an assessment of the 
petitioner's research studies, the evidence does not show that any of her research studies constitute 
contributions of major significance in the field of infectious diseases or microbiology. Specifically, 
notwithstanding_ proposal, there is no evidence showing that the proposal has been 
adopted or that ~sus among infectious disease specialists or microbiologists that the 
petitioner's template should be adopted. One person's opinion, even if that person is the Head of the 
Page 7 
Mayo Clinic's HIV Clinic, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's template constitutes 
contributions of major significance in the field. Similarly, the mere fact that the petitioner was 
involved in the PDA approval process for a drug also does not establish that her involvement 
constitutes contributions of major significance. The record is devoid of information on the frequency 
doctors prescribe the drug or the effectiveness of the drug. Likewise, a handful of doctors adopting the 
petitioner's research findings in their practices do not demonstrate that the petitioner's research 
constitutes contributions of major significance to the entire field of infectious diseases or 
microbiology. 
Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of 
qualifying contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. While the petitioner's concise communication in 
2002 may have garnered moderate citation, this single example of independent recognition is 
insufficient evidence of contributions of major significance in the plural. 
Accordingly, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that 
she has made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the authorship of 
scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Counsel made a similar assertion in her 
response to the director's Request for Evidence. On October 20, 2010, the director decided this issue 
favorably, finding that the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence showing that she meets this 
criterion. As such, the AAO will not further discuss this issue. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
When counsel initially filed the visa petition, she claimed that the petitioner meets the leading or 
critical role criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In her response to the director's Request for 
Evidence, counsel again asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion. The director concluded 
otherwise on October 20, 2010, finding that although the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence 
showing the Mayo Clinic to be an organization with a distinguished reputation, she has not provided 
sufficient evidence showing that her role as either a fellow or instructor constitutes a critical or leading 
role for the Mayo Clinic. On appeal, without providing any legal argument, counsel asserted that the 
petitioner has performed "leading roles at prominent medical institutions .... " The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Moreover, counsel's mere statement on appeal that the petitioner 
meets this criterion, without providing any legal support, does not trigger the AAO to conduct a full 
Page 8 
analysis of the criterion. See Desravines v. United States Attorney General, No. 08-14861, 343 F. 
App'x 433, 435 (lith Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are 
deemed abandoned); Tedder v. F.M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned 
an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). Accordingly, the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as she did not properly raise it on appeal. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite evidence under three evidentiary categories. Although the petitioner meets the participation 
as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), she meets no other criteria. Notwithstanding this finding, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO will conduct 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 [she] is one of [a] small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor," and (2) that she "has sustained national or international acclaim and that [] her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 
8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. For the reasons discussed below, 
the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not made such a showing. Accordingly, the appeal must be 
dismissed. 
In her brief, counsel, citing Buletini v. l.N.S., 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), contends that 
because the petitioner has met three of the ten evidentiary categories, the director erred in denying her 
visa petition. The AAO disagrees. First, as discussed above, the AAO finds that the petitioner meets 
only two of the evidentiary categories. Second, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the 
case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a 
United States district court in cases arising even within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N 
Dec. 715, 718-20 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due 
consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed 
as a matter of law. [d. at 719. Regardless, the court in Buletini acknowledged that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, may deny a visa petition when it "sets forth specific and substantiated reasons for its finding 
that the alien, despite having satisfied the criteria, does not meet the extraordinary ability standard." 
Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. The AAO will discuss such reasons in the following final merits 
determination. 
With regard to the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), as 
discussed above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, because she failed to 
timely raise it on appeal. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Moreover, the AAO finds that the petitioner's evidence in support of this criterion does not 
demonstrate that she is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
infectious diseases and microbiology, or that she has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that her achievements have been recognized in her field. See section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In her brief in support of the initial filing 
Page 9 
of the visa petition, counsel stated that the petitioner had received several awards, but failed to specify 
the awards. The· .. ... . . that in 
1992, she was awarded 
Dublin, and in 1993, she was awarded first place in ethnics by an unspecified organization. In his 
March 12, 2010 Request for Evidence, the director asked the petitioner to submit evidence to establish 
the origination, purpose, significance and scope of each award, as well as the criteria used to nominate 
and judge the award nominees and winners. In her response, the petitioner provided none of the 
requested documents and counsel provided no legal argument to support a finding that the petitioner 
either meets this criterion or that the awards constitute evidence that the petitioner is eligible for the 
employment classification sought. The petitioner also failed to provide any evidence documenting her 
receipt of the awards, i.e., a copy of the awards or a letter from the organization(s) that presented her 
the awards. 
With regard to the memberships in associations criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as discussed 
above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, because she failed to timely 
challenge the director's adverse decision. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *9. Moreover, the AAO finds that the petitioner's evidence in support of this criterion 
does not demonstrate that she is eligible for the employment classification sought. See section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In her 
brief in support of the initial filing of the visa petition, counsel stated that the petitioner "has been 
selected for membership in some of the country's most important medical organizations." The 
petitioner's supporting evidence includes (1) her self-serving curriculum vitae, which shows that she is 
a member of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), American College of Physicians 
(ACP), American Society of Microbiology (ASM), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), 
American Medical Association (AMA) and Medical Council of Ireland (MCI); (2) descriptions of the 
various organizations that she had joined; and (3) receipts proving her payments of 2009 membership 
dues for ASM, IDSA, AMA and ACP. 
In response to the director's Request for Evidence, counsel acknowledged that it is very "rare" for 
physician organizations to require "outstanding achievement[s]" from their members. This statement 
is supported by the organizational descriptions provided in the petitioner's curriculum vitae. 
Specifically, according to this self-serving document, the ABIM certifies one out of every three 
practicing physicians in the United States. The ACP has 126,000 members. The ASM has 43,000 
members. The AMA accepts anyone who has passed the United States Medical Licensing 
Examinations, holds an active license to practice medicine in the United States, and has passed a 
background check. The MCI has 19,071 registered doctors. These documents suggest that the 
associations of which the petitioner is a member allow most, if not all, physicians in good standing to 
join, regardless of their achievements or accomplishments in their respective medical fields. 
With regard to the participation as a judge criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the AAO agrees 
with the director's findings that although the petitioner meets the criterion, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the petitioner enjoys national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(I)(A) of 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. According to a number 
of the petitioner's references, including an associate professor of medicine in the 
Mayo Clinic's Division of Hematology, and an infectious diseases physician in 
Duluth, Minnesota, when the petitioner was a fellow with the Mayo Clinic from 1999 or 2000 to 2003, 
she served as an instructor and was involved in teaching, supervising and evaluating residents and 
medical students. _ stated in his January 18,2008 reference letter that the petitioner "played a 
part [in] shaping the curriculum for teaching medical students .... " 
Although the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner has met this criterion, the evidence is not 
indicative of the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. On this issue, the AAO agrees 
with the director in that when the petitioner was an instructor in the Mayo Clinic, one of her inherent 
duties in that position was to teach and evaluate her students. Most, if not all, teachers of all types 
teach and evaluate their students. Indeed, a number of the petitioner's references who teach, also 
evaluate either their students or other physicians. For example, in his June 27, 2008 letter, Professor 
stated that he has "judged, evaluated and reviewed many outstanding Infectious 
Diseases specialists." In his June 17, 2008 letter, a senior lecturer in medicine in 
the Clinical Science Institute of the University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland, stated that it is his 
responsibility to "evaluate a physician's clinical and research acumen." Similarly, in his January 24, 
2008 letter, a consultant to the Mayo Clinic's Division of Nephrology and 
Hypertension, an of medicine and Program Director of Mayo Clinic's Transplant 
Nephrology Fellowship, indicated that he "evaluate[s] a physician's clinical and research acumen." 
Based on the evidence in the record, including those not specifically mentioned, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the petitioner's teaching positions and obligations with the Mayo Clinic, which ended in 
2003 and were internal to her place of employment, support a finding that she enjoys national or 
international acclaim. 
Moreover, although the petitioner's curriculum vitae indicates that from 2008 to 2009, she served as 
the Medical Director and Chairperson of Infection Control for the Valley Hospital in Las Vegas, 
Nevada, a teaching hospital, the AAO does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that she 
participated as a judge of the work of others in the medical field or that the positions are indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim. The J 18, 2010 letter from the 
indicates gan 
servmg as 
2008, as claimed in the petitioner's curriculum vitae. The letter, not nrn,Vl£l 
with sufficient evidence to find that in these posts, the petitioner either has participated as a judge or 
enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO makes the same findings as relating to 
the petitioner's 2010 position as an executive member of the Medicine Department Committee of the 
Valley Hospital Medical Center. 
With regard to the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), as discussed above, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion, 
because she has not shown that her research studies constitutes either original contributions or 
contributions of major significance in the field of infectious diseases and microbiology. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Page 11 
Specifically, the petitioner's evidence shows that she has been involved in a number of research 
studies. For example, an infectious disease specialist at the Valley Hospital in 
Las Vegas, Nevada, stated in his March 29,2010 reference letter that the petitioner's research relating 
to transplant-related infections was "novel and original," was "very important in shedding new lights 
on an important clinical issue," and "directly led to improvement in patient care." He then speculated, 
without providing sufficient bases, that the petitioner was "one of less than 5% of current physician 
scientists who could have even taken this 'ect to fruition, simply because of its sheer complexity." 
instructor in microbiology, stated in her letter that the petitioner's research resulted in 
patient morbidity, mortality, length of . stay and healthcare cost. The petitioner's other 
reference letters, including those from _show that her 
research on infections had led to the FDA approval of an antibiotic to combat a previously antibiotic­
resistant strain of pneumonia. 
The petitioner's evidence also shows that a number of her references have relied on the findings of her 
research in their medical practice. For example, _ who was the petitioner's_ 
•••• in the Mayo Clinic's Department of Me~ March 28, 2010 reference letter 
that he had relied on the petitioner's research on cytomegalovirus to diagnose and treat his patients. 
an internal medicine doctor at the Valley Hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada, wrote in 
his March 26, 2010 reference letter that he is "well-aware of [the petitioner's] landmark research and 
[has] utilized its applications frequently in [his] own practice." an infectious 
disease specialist at the Veterans Affair Hospital in North Las Vegas, Nevada, stated to have benefited 
from the petitioner's research that allowed him to make "timely, potentially life-saving, early 
diagnos [ e ] s." The petitioner has not, however, demonstrated that these references are independent 
such that these letters demonstrate that the petitioner is known beyond her immediate circle of current 
and former colleagues. 
Finally, the petitioner's evidence suggests that she may be respected among physicians, mostly among 
those with whom she has worked. S . claimed that the petitioner "is deeply 
respected and admired by her colleagues." an infectious disease specialist at 
Infection Doctors in Las Vegas, Nevada, claim in her April 3, 2010 letter that the petitioner's research 
work has been "very impressive .... " _ discussed in his reference letter two of the 
petitioner's researches, one on the proper dosing of fluconazole, and the other on a rheumatoid arthritis 
medication, and stated that other physicians have been impressed by the petitioner's research work. 
Based on the evidence in the record, including documents not specifically mentioned above, the AAO 
concludes that the petitioner has been a productive and effective researcher and physician, her research 
results have assisted physicians, mostly local colleagues, in their medical practice and she is respected 
by other physicians. This, however, is insufficient to demonstrate that she is either one of a small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of infectious diseases and microbiology, or that 
she has sustained national or international acclaim. The accomplishments that the petitioner has 
attained are similar to those of any researcher who has had achieve some level of success. But being 
such a researcher does not mean the person has reached the very top of her field or has attained 
Page 12 
national or international acclaim. The AAO notes that the petitioner's reference letters are mostly from 
people associated with the Mayo Clinic or the National University of Ireland, where the petitioner 
completed her medical training, or physicians in the Las Vegas, Nevada area, where she has worked 
since approximately 2005. The evidence might be in~ or local familiarity, but falls 
short of national or international acclaim. Although _ Mikati Foundation Endowed 
Chair in Liver Diseases at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland Ohio, stated in his March 30, 2010 letter 
that the petitioner is "regarded as one of the top infectious disease specialists currently practicing 
throughout the world," the AAO deems this a conclusory statement, made without sufficient support or 
basis. See 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General of United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, (D.C. Dist. 1990) (USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions). Indeed, Dr. Zein's March 30, 2010 letter is a one­
paragraph letter. 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the AAO 
agrees with the director's findings that although the petitioner meets this criterion, the evidence does 
not demonstrate that she is eligible for the employment classification sought. See section 203(b)(I)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Under the 
publication section of her curriculum vitae, the petitioner listed: (1) a 2002 four-page "Concise 
Communication," entitled "Selective Reactivation of Human Herpesvirus 6 Variant A Occurs in 
Critically III Immunocompetent Hosts," published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, and (2) a 1999 
six-paragraph abstract of an oral presentation, entitled "Thyrotoxic Graves' Disease with Profound 
Anemia, Thrombocytopenisa and Lymphadenopathy," published in the Journal of Internal Medicine. 
The petitioner also claimed to have published three poster presentations from 1993 to 1999. According 
to counsel's brief filed in support of the initial visa petition filing, these publishers have "a less than 
20% publication rate for applications." Similarly, in her March 26, 2010 reference letter 
stated that the publication acceptance rate is between 10 and 20 percent. The petitioner has a 
January 15, 2010 online printout showing that her 2002 "Concise Communication" has been cited 
eighty-three times. The AAO notes that although the petitioner completed her fellowship training at 
the Mayo Clinic, a prestigious entity, where she was involved in a research project that received some 
attention through citations, she has not since been involved in another project that has received a 
similar level of attention. Indeed, no evidence has been submitted to show that her 1999 abstract or 
any of her three poster presentations was ever cited. 
In her April 5, 2010 reference letter, an associate professor of medicine in 
Mayo Clinic's Division of Pulmonary , stated that the petitioner published 
an article, entitled "HHV -6 and HHV -7 Reactivation in Critically III Immunocompetent Patients," 
based on her "truly groundbreaking research." The letter does not specify the date or the publisher of 
the article. This article is also not listed in the petitioner's curriculum vitae. According to the 
petitioner's curriculum vitae, this was one of her study designs approved by the Mayo Clinic 
Institutional Review Board. There is no indication from the curriculum vitae when the study was 
conducted or if it resulted in a published article. As the petitioner has provided inconsistent 
documents, "it is incumbent upon [her] to resolve the inconsistencies by independent objective 
evidence. Attempts to explain or reconcile the conflicting accounts [or evidence], absent competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Page 13 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The petitioner has provided no such evidence to explain or reconcile 
the inconsistent evidence. 
Based on the petitioner's 2002 "Concise Communication," the 1999 conference abstract and three 
poster presentations, the AAO has insufficient evidence to find that she is one of a small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of infectious diseases and microbiology, or that she has 
sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO has not been provided with information relating 
to the approximate number of articles a typical infectious disease and microbiology researcher or 
physician publishes, or the approximate number of other authors who would cite the researcher or 
physician's article(s). The AAO also does not have any information on either the publication or 
citation frequency of a top, let alone a very top, infectious disease and microbiology researcher or 
physician. In short, the AAO is unable to compare the petitioner's accomplishments with others in the 
same field and cannot conclude that the petitioner's published material and the eighty-three citations 
are indicative of or support a finding that she is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of her field or that she has sustained national or international acclaim. 
With regard to the performance in a leading or critical role criterion under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
as discussed above, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not met this criterion. Moreover, the 
evidence as relating to this criterion is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The evidence shows that the petitioner completed two fellowships and 
was employed as an instructor at the Mayo Clinic. The petitioner's affiliation with the Mayo Clinic 
ended when the fellowship and employment ended in 2003, approximately six years before she filed 
the visa petition in January 2010. Thus, this role is not evidence of sustained acclaim when the 
petitioner filed the petition. Regardless, the evidence does not support a finding that the petitioner has 
performed either a leading or critical role for the Mayo Clinic, because the record lacks evidence of her 
position within the Mayo Clinic's hierarchy or her contribution to the facility as a whole. 
The evidence also shows that the petitioner was or is affiliated with a number of medical 
establishments in Nevada, including the Redrock Medical Group, North Vista Hospital, Horizon 
Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, University Medical Center of South Nevada, the Salvation Army's 
Good Samaritan Medical Clinic, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center and its affiliates, Valley Health 
System affiliates, St. Rose Dominican Hospitals, HealthSouth affiliates, and a number of medical 
establishments in Ireland. There is, however, insufficient evidence for the AAO to conclude that these 
organizations have a distinguished reputation. Moreover, the evidence does not indicate that the 
petitioner's role in these organizations or establishments was leading or critical or otherwise indicative 
of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In addition to the evidence discussed above, the AAO reviewed all other evidence in the record, 
including (1) reference letters from doctors who praised the petitioner's care of patients and her 
dedication to providing medical care to the underserved population in Nevada; (2) documents relating 
to presentations that the petitioner had given in medical conferences hosted by the American Geriatrics 
Society, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, and Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents 
Page 14 
and Chemotherapy (lCAAC); (3) a March 26, 2010 reference letter from 
_ and (4) the petitioner's employment verifications. Although the AAO agrees that the 
petItIoner has been a productive and effective researcher and physician, who is respected by her 
colleagues, she falls short of showing that she is one of a small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of infectious diseases and microbiology or that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim in her field. 
Finally, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not continued to work in her area of expertise. 
Specifically, most of her evidence in support of the visa petition relates to her research 
accomplishments. She, however, has not conducted research studies since 2003 when her affiliation 
with the Mayo Clinic ended. Instead, the evidence shows that she has been working as a medical 
practitioner from 2003 to 2010, when she filed the visa petition. Indeed, in response to the director's 
Request for Evidence, the petitioner stated that "[she] fully intend[s] and look[s] forward to being able 
to continue [her] research in the further when [she is] able to work in an academic hospital that 
sponsors research .... " In short, her failure to be involved in research studies in the six years 
preceding the filing of her visa petition is inconsistent with her claim that she currently enjoys 
sustained national or international acclaim in the field of infectious diseases and microbiology as a 
researcher, when most of her evidence relates to her research studies. 
IV. 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 her field of endeavor. 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate, however, does not establish that the petItIOner has 
distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field of infectious 
diseases or microbiology. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 Congresswoman Barkley noted in her letter that the petitioner works in an underserved area. Under section 
203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, in certain cases, an alien may be granted an employment-based immigrant visa if she is a 
physician working in shortage areas or veterans facilities. This, however, is not the visa category that the petitioner seeks.