dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-A-8-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 18,2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher in the field of medical technology, seeks classitication as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l )(A). This first preference classitication 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 ticld through extensive documentation .. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement or met at least three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that he meets four of the ten criteria, and that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of that small percentage of individuals at the 
very top of his field of endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Actmakes 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 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 
Mauerl!j'A-A-B-
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 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sut1icient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itselt; establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 tina! merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Maller ofChawathe, 25 l&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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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"). 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 demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher in the tield of medical science. Because he has not indicated or 
established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must meet at least 
three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found 
that the Petitioner met only two criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets two additional criteria.' We have reviewed all of 
the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies 
the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of"! he alien's participarion. eirher individually or on a panel. as a judge '!f 
the work of orhers in rhe same or an allied field of specia/izarion .fiJr which 
classificarion is soughr. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his tield. The 
record indicated that he served as a reviewer of papers submitted for three conferences. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director's determination that he meets this criterion. 
1 
Ailhough Ihe Pelilioncr iniiially claimed Ihe membership under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), he does nol conies! Ihe 
Direcior's finding Ihal he did nol esiablish eligibility for !hal criierion on appeal. Thus, we will not address it in Ihis 
decision. 
2 
.
Maller of A-A-B-
Eviden ce qf the aliens· original scientific , scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business­
relal ed contribulions t?{mqjor sign(ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Director found that the Petitioner made scientific contributions of major signiticance in the field 
of medical technology. In reviewing the record on appeal, however, the evidence indicates that 
while the Petitioner has made original contribution s, he has not established their signiticance. The 
Director based his decision, in part, on the application the Petitioner designed while emp loyed at 
, a regional health care provider in New York state, using an algorithm 
tracking the Length of Stay, Acuity of Admission, Comorbidities, and Emergency Room visits in 
past 6 months (LACE). This LACE tool was designed to evaluate the probability that a patient 
would be readmitted to a hospital after discharge. founder and CEO of 
indicates that the Petitioner's LACE tool reduced patient readmissions at by 
26%, and that it has been implemented at three other hospitals. However, letter does not 
indicate that he has any affiliation with the named hospitals, and the nature of his artiliation with 
is unclear. 
Senior Vice President of , states in his letter that while employed at 
he became aware of the Petitioner's LACE tool through its submission at the 
2011 conference, where it won a $1 0,000 prize. 
also mentions two of the three hospitals that are adopting the LACE tool, but also does not· 
claim any affiliation with those hospitals. The record lacks corroborating evidence to support the 
claims in these letters, which were written by experts lacking first-hand knowledge of the 
implementation of this application. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 at 135-136 
(concluding that the decision of USC IS to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from 
practitioners in the tield was not arbitrary 
and capricious). 
The record also includes evidence of the Petitioner's work 
project while at 
on a radio frequency identification 
Director, Clinical Informatics at 
and the Petitioner's former colleague while at describes this 
project as patient tracker technology designed to monitor the location and wait times. 
describes this as a successful project which was implemented in emergency departments. 
However, while his letter states that this technology is applicable to hospitals nationwide, the record 
does not suppo11 a finding that the Petitioner's software was implemented outside of facilities 
to have an impact upon the broader field of medical technology. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of a patent application for the mobile application. 
As described by of the 
he worked with the Petitioner in developing this application, which allows his patients to transmit 
self-recorded blood pressure, blood sugar and heartrate measurement s to their hcalthcare provider in 
real time, as well as interfacing directly with electronic medical records. The record indicates that 
and his partners usc the application with approximately 2,000 patients, but it does 
3 
.
t'vfaller of A-A-B-
not support the petitioner' s claim of nationwide adop tion, or establi sh that this local ized u sage of the 
application indicates a contribut ion of major significance to the field. 
In addition , states in his letter that the Petitioner was the lead so ftware develope r and 
designer for , another telemedicine project that allow s doctors and patien ts to exchange 
pictures and videos in real time to rerriotely dia gnose a· condition . indicate s that 
is currently in use in 36 state s, but the record does not include corroborating evidence to suppor t this 
claim. Furthermore, the record does not estab lish that the Petitioner' s development of this 
application has made suc h an impact on the field of medi cal technology that it represents a 
contr ibution of major signi ticance to the field. Accordingly, the record does not support the 
Dire ctor's fi nding that the Petiti oner has met thi s criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's awhorship (?{scholarly articles in the.field. in professional or 
major 1rade publication s or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (3)( vi) 
In his decis ion, the Direct or acknowle dged tha t the Petitioner submitted evidence of having authored 
three peer -rev iewe d p apers which were presented at scientific cont-erences, and included in the 
proceedin gs o f tho se conferenc es. However , he concluded that this evidence did not establish that 
the pap ers had bee n published in pro fessional or majo r trade public ations or other major m edia. The 
record indic ates that at least two of the paper s a uthored by the Petitioner, prese nted at the 2015 
and the 2014 
were published as full papers in the proceedings of those co nferences. 
Accor di ngly , we find that the Petitione r has met this criter ion . 
Evidence that that the alien has pe1jormed in a leading or critical role .for 
organizations or establishments that have a distingui shed reputation. 8 C.F.R . § 
204.5(h)(3 )(viii) 
The Petitioner asse rts on appeal that he meet s this criterion by v irtue of his positions at and 
The Direct or acknowl edged in his decis ion that has a distingu ished reputation. 
However, rev iew o f the reco rd revea ls that the evide nce submitt ed with the original submi ssion, and 
again on appe al, relates to ,· a Fortune 500 company operatin g 225 
healthcare facilities in 37 state s. The Petitioner also refers to that ev idenc e in his initi al tilin g and 
RFE respo nse briefs when describing his actual former emp loyer. 
Accord ing to its website, is a regional healthcare syste m loca ted in New York State's Third 
Tier, with 60 locatio ns includ ing 3 hosp itals.2 As the record doe s not establish that h as a 
distin guished reputation , we ove rrule that part of the Director 's decision . 
In his deci sion, the Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not esta bli shed that his role for 
was lead ing or critical. On appeal, the Petitioner relies upon two letter s to show that his 
position as Senior Busine ss Intellige nce Lead Analyst qualified . explains the Petitioner's 
2 https:// 
4 
.
Mauer of A-A-B-
role in improving 
algorithm, which 
SimilarlY . . '. 
billing and processing sys tems, as well as his implementation of the LACE 
states reduced readmissions and patient wait time at hospitals. 
Chief Medical Inform atio n Officer for 
and a former colleag ue at briefly mentions the same two projects, and also describes the 
software that the Petitioner developed for use by the emergency depa rtments there. Ne ither these 
letters nor other evidence in the record indicates that he operated at a senior level within 
organization al hierarchy commensurate with a leading role . While the Petition er worked on 
important systems at , the reco rd lacks evidence corroborating the claims made by and 
regarding his role and its overall impact on the organization. 
To demon strate the Petition er 's role with the Petitioner provides a letter from 
its Chief Medical Informatics Ofticer , who identifies the Petitioner' s job 
title as Director and describes his creation and leadersh ip of a new departm ent called 
He also describes two projects developed by the Petiti oner while at 
a workflow system and a Virtual Intensive Care Unit. This letter does not establish that the 
Petition er played a leading role tor , as it does not identify t he size of the team he lead, or its 
position within organizational hierarch y. Similarly, the letter does not demon strate that the 
Petitioner played a critical role . While claims that "has been ab le to grow at 
a rapid pace" and push into new areas of healthcare, the record lack s supporting evide nce of the 
impact of the Petitioner's work on the organization. Thus, the Petitioner has not esta blished that he 
performed in a leading or critical role. Accordingly , the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establi sh that the Petitioner meets three of the ten evidenti ary criteria. As a 
result, we need not provid e the type of final merits analysis det erm ination referenced in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Neverthele ss, we advise that we have review ed the record in its entirety, and 
conclude that it does not suppo rt a tinding that the Petitioner has established the level of expert ise 
requir ed for the classificati on sought. For these reasons, the Petitioner has no t shown that he 
qualitie s for classification as an individual of extraordinar y ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter qf'A-A-B-, ID# 1069683 (AAO Apr. 18, 2018) 
5