dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26378313 Date: MAY 18, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner describes himself as a "medical doctor specializ[ing] in lawsuit and health rights," who 
seeks employment as a legal consultant specializing in medical malpractice litigation. He seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant 
visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. The Director 
also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that his entry into the United States will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 7 5-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review , 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the 
United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), including 
items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we assess whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a medical degree in Brazil, and practiced emergency medicine there from 2010 
to 2014. He then worked for "a public company that conducts the entrance medical exams for some 
public jobs in Brazil" from 2014 to 2018. He has also worked for Brazilian comis as a medical advisor 
for various types oflitigation. He established a legal consulting company in 201 7. The Petitioner has 
served on the Conselho Regional de Medicina do Distrito Federal (CRM-DF) (Board of Physicians 
of the Federal District), which has disciplinary authority over physician conduct, and the Associacao 
Brasileira de Medicina Legal e Pericias Medicas do Distrito Federal (ABMLPM-DF) (Federal 
District Board of Forensic Medicine). The Petitioner intends "to study law in the US as soon as 
possible," and to assist lawyers with medical malpractice litigation, while continuing to work remotely 
for employers and organizations in Brazil. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claimed to have submitted evidence, or comparable evidence, relating to five of 
the criteria, pertaining to memberships in associations; published material; participation as a judge of 
the work of others; original contributions of major significance; and leading or critical roles. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's work with CRM-DF satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which entails judging the work of others. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he 
also meets the other four claimed criteria, either directly or through comparable evidence. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied one criterion, 
pertaining to judging. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
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). 
The Petitioner documented his membership in CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF, but has not shown that these 
organizations are associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the president of CRM-DF, who cited article 12 of Federal Council 
of Medicine Resolution No. 1974/11, which states: "The doctor must not allow his name to be included 
in contests ... to choose the 'doctor of the year,' 'outstanding,' 'best doctor,' or other denominations that 
aim at promotional or advertising purposes." The president of CRM-DF stated that, because of this 
regulation, "[i]t is ... forbidden to participate in an association that needs outstanding achievements." 
The Petitioner stated that, because of the rnle described above, the regulato1y language does not apply to 
physicians in Brazil, and therefore the Director should accept comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). It is not sufficient for the Petitioner to claim or establish that a particular c1iterion does not 
apply; the Petitioner must also establish that the substitute evidence is "comparable" to the type of 
evidence described in the criterion. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his memberships are 
comparable to the memberships described at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Brazilian regulation that created "Regional Councils of Medicine," including CRM-DF, indicates 
that members ''will be chosen by secret ballot" cast by "the physicians regularly registered in each 
Regional Council." This information shows that CRM-DF members are chosen by all participating local 
physicians, rather than by nationally or internationally recognized expe1is. 
Fmihennore, the Petitioner has not established that CRM-DF is an "association in the field." The record 
shows it to be a government-established disciplinary body, whose members have official duties and 
receive "daily allowances" and other "compensation," according to the submitted regulations. The 
Petitioner referred to his position at CRM-DF as a "job" with a "salary." Employment is not the same as 
membership in an association. 
The record contains less information about ABMLPM-DF. A letter from the organization's treasurer 
refers to the entity as "a private association responsible for knowledge of the correct practice of the 
profession." The letter does not explain the criteria that one must meet in order to join the organization. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established membership in qualifying associations. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his election to leadership positions in CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF, 
along with his invitation to testify before the Brazilian Senate, demonstrates his recognition in the field. 
Senate testimony, however, does not constitute or reflect membership in an association. Also, leadership 
positions are not, themselves, memberships in associations. A separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), discussed below, pertains to leading or critical roles. 
The Petitioner has not established that his membership in CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF is comparable to 
the memberships described at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 1 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
1 If this decision had reached a final merits determination, the narrow geographic jurisdiction of the two organizations 
would have come into play. The statute requires recognition at a national or international level. CRM-DF and ABMLPM-
DF, by nature, are district-level organizations with jurisdiction limited to the vicinity ofBrazil's capital cityj I 
3 
Such evidence shall include the title. date. and author ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner again cited the Federal Council of Medicine resolution quoted above, claiming that it 
prohibits "publication of journalistic material promoting [a] doctor's work." The Petitioner does not 
submit any independent evidence to support this interpretation of the regulation. The president of CRM­
DF stated, "we discourage the publication of journalistic material promoting the doctor's work," but the 
cited regulation refers specifically to "promotional or advertising purposes," rather than to journalism, 
and the record does not establish CRM-DF's authority to prevent the publication of news articles (as 
distinct from advertisements) about physicians. 
Initially and again on appeal, the Petitioner has asked the Director to consider, as comparable evidence, 
video footage of his testimony on the website of the Brazilian Senate. The Petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence to establish that viewership of such testimony on the Senate website is comparable 
to that of major media. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix, for information 
about the types of evidence that can establish that published material meets the regulatory requirements. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit the required English translation of the testimony, or establish 
that his testimony was about him, pertaining to his work in the field. From its suITounding context, it 
appears that the Petitioner's testimony was about the issue of disability benefits for individuals with 
monocular vision. 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that Brazil passed legislation designating the loss of 
vision in one eye as a disability for legal purposes. The designation entitles affected persons to certain 
public benefits. The Petitioner had been involved in related litigation and testified to the Brazilian Senate 
in support of this legislation. 
In the denial notice, the Director quoted from letters submitted in support of the petition, and concluded 
that, while the Petitioner had made original contributions, he had not shown their major significance. The 
Director did not specifically address the Brazilian legislation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asks: "How is it that the creation of a law, which impacts thousands of lives 
nationwide, does not represent a significant impact in the field?" While the record shows that the 
Petitioner testified in favor of the legislation in question, the Petitioner is not a legislator, and he does not 
claim to have drafted the statutory text or to have initiated the efforts to pass the law. Rather, he was one 
of several activists who each contributed in various ways to the passage of the statute. 
A translated printout from the Senate's website indicates that the Petitioner was one of 14 people who 
testified at a July 2019 hearing about the proposed legislation. The law was enacted nearly two years 
later, in March 2021. The evidence in the record does not show that the Petitioner is sufficiently 
responsible for the passage of the legislation that the law can be considered as his contribution to the field. 
4 
Evidence that the alien has performed 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 Petitioner claimed to satisfy this criterion __________ CRM-DF, ____ 
ABMLPM-DF, and his ownership of a consulting organization. The Director requested "[o]bjective, 
documentary evidence to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the organizations or establishments 
for which the beneficiary perfo1med in leading or critical roles. The evidence should document the 
organizations' or establishments' eminence, distinction, or excellence." 
In response, the Petitioner stated that the organizations all have distinguished reputations because CRM­
DF "is a government agency created by law, responsible for regulating and supervising the correct 
exercise of medicine" and ABMLPM-DF "represents all Forensics doctors in" Brazil's Federal District. 
Regarding his company, the Petitioner stated: "Lawyers from all over Brazil seek our services," and that 
the company's "perfonnance ... was enough to draw the attention of the Federal Senate," which invited 
the Petitioner to testify. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show that the organizations "possess a level of 
eminence or distinction that sets them apart from the others and the info1mation provided has not 
established that the organizations have a distinguished reputation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that CRM-DF "is the highest organization to regulate and supervise the 
practice of medicine. We regulate and judge medical malpractice in our state. This is the most elevated 
position for a medical doctor, especially for a forensic doctor. ... There is none higher than that." The 
issue here, however, is not the extent of CRM-DF's local authority, but whether the organization has a 
distinguished reputation. CRM-DF is a district-level disciplinary authority, and the Petitioner did not 
show that it has a distinguished reputation in comparison to over 20 similar bodies with authority over 
other federative units and states in Brazil.2 
The Petitioner has not established that the organizations in which he performed in leading or critical roles 
have distinguished reputations. 
The above conclusions determine the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve the separate issue 
of whether the Petitioner's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
2 As discussed earlier above, the narrow geographic jurisdictions of CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF would have been 
significant factors if this decision had reached a final merits determination. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). The Petitioner's election to leadership positions on local boards does not 
attest to recognition on a national or international scale. The record does not establish sustained 
national or international acclaim as required by section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record 
does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner has had success in the area of malpractice litigation, but 
the record does not offer a sufficient basis to compare the scope and scale of the Petitioner's efforts to 
that of others engaged in similar work. With no objective, evidentiary basis for comparison, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he has reached the top of his field. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6