dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

'identifying data deleted to 
prevent Cl~hr ., ~ilwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
1i.S. 1)epartmc.rtt uf tfonieland Sccurit) 
I;.S. C'iti/e~lsliip atid Immigration Services 
Office, o/ /I(lrirrrii.c/~.tr/i~~~~ . lpl>etrls MS 2090 
Washing~oli. 1)C 70529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 09 007 5 1986 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition f'or 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. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Adniinistrati~e Appeals Office in )our case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided qoilr case. Any further inq~iirj must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriate11 applied or you havz additior~al information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. I'lease refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All [notions rnu\t be cubinitted t+~ tthc office that origrnally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. \\it11 a fee ot'$585. An! motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks lo recon4der or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
J,!Dedvldb errv Rhew 
ychief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition mas denied by the Director. Texas 
Service Center, on May 28, 2009. and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-bascd immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A). as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically. the director fhund that the petitioner had Sailed to demonstrate 
the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part. that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified imnligrants 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 e:ctraordinary ability in the sciznces, arts, education. 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated bj sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements hake been recognii.ed in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue uork in the area of 
extraordinary ability. and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the Uniled St;itcs will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (IJSCIS) and legacy Imn~igration 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the reg~~lation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated. liouever. that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclai111 at the very top le~el. 
This petition, filed on October 9. 2008. seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien ~ith extraordinary 
ability as a physician. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(1) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through e\~idence of a one-time acl~ievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner. however. cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that siniply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whetlie~ the petitioner meets a specif c criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a lecel of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top oi' the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation ofthe tllien 's ~*c~'eipt of I~SSOI* nc~/ion~IIy or i~/ernu/iontrII~~ rclcognized 
prizes or awards,fir excellence in /he field 01 cfm'ecr\,o~. 
On appeal, the petitioner stated that even though hc subniitted ecidcnce of his receipt of the Luis 
Razetti 1985 Award, the director failed to consider Iiis award for this criterion. A review of the 
record reflects that the petitioner did submit a cop) of the auard at the time the petition was filed, 
and the director failed to evaluate the evidence in his decision. On appeal, we will consider the 
petitioner's eligibility for this criterion based on the petitioner's receipt of the 1,uis Razetti 1985 
Award. 
A review of the award reflects that the petitioner, along with other doctors, received the Luis Razetti 
1985 Award from the Federal Distlict Medical Doctor Board for the titled work. Clinical and 
biochemical bases of the re~islance to /he in5zrlin in zvel~zicr, chr.onic herno-u'ia1y.ri.r and continue 
ambulatory peritoneal u'ialj,t is. On appeal. the pelitioner claimed that this award "is the highest 
honor afforded a doctor [in] Venezuela." iIo~4ecer. the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence supporting this assertion. Go~ng on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Mcclter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing ,2!citier of Tr.etr\ure C'i-trfl of ('trlifonzitr, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The plain language of the regulator) criterion at 8 C'.F.fI. $ 204.5(11)(3)(i) specifically requires that 
the petitioner's awards be nationally 0:- intcrnationallj recognized in the field of endeavor, and it is 
his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case. there is no ebidence showing that 
the petitioner's award commanded a significant lewl of recognition beyond the context of the event 
where it was presented. For example, tlierc is no evidence shobing that the petitioner's award was 
announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established his award resulted in his receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award. 
Page 4 
Notwithstanding the above, the regulation at 8 C.F.K. $ 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an 
alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national 
or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recogni~ed in the field of 
expertise." Evidence of tlie petitioner's nationally or internationallq recognized prizes or awards 
must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. Ihe weight gi~en to evidence submitted to fulfill 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)r:i). therefore. depends on tlie extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent ~cith sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower cvidentiary standard would not be consistent with the 
regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). Even if we were to find that the petitioner's award is a nationally or internationally 
recognized award, which we clearly do not. the petitioner's award was in 1985, a period of 23 years 
prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioner failcd to establish the requisite sustained national or 
international acclaim. In addition. ue do not find evidence that the petitioner's single award is 
sufficient to establish the level of accla~m required fhr this highly rcstrictivc classification. 
Further, while the petitioner did not claini eligibility for this specific criterion. the petitioner 
submitted a certificate from Stanford Lliiiversity Medical Center certifying that the petitioner served 
as fellow in medicinelnephrology from May 1. 1989. to Ilecenibcr 3 1. 1990. On appeal, the 
petitioner stated: 
Being at the top of the list. is jtudyillg ai Stanford Ilnibersiry. which is extraordinary 
and exceptional (see annex litie Stanli~rd lJni\crsity). l liere are a very small 
percentage of Venezuelan doctors who ha\le studied at a uiii\lersity as prestigious as 
recognized and [sic] Stanfbrd Uni\crsitq. l'his ccidence was not considered  hen I 
was denied my request. 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a fi~ture field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships, student awards. and fellowships cannot be considered prizes or awards in the 
petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover. competition for fellowships is limited to other students. 
Experienced experts in the field are not seeking scholarships. Similarly. experienced experts do not 
compete for fellowships and competitike postdoctoral appointments. Ihus, they cannot establish 
that a petitioner is one of the very f'ekb :it the top of'his field. 
Significantly, this office has held. in a precedent dccision in~olving a lcsser classification than the one 
sought in this matter, that academic pcrlorniance, measured bj such criteria as grade point average, is 
not a specific prior achievement that establishes thc alien's ability to benefit the national interest. 
Matter of New York State Dep 'I. of 7i.clnsp.. 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 2 19. n.6 (Comm'r. 1998). Thus, 
academic performance is certainly not coinparable to tlie awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive classification. 
Therefore, the petitioner's selection fbr a fcllo,\ship a& Stailford I lrri\lcrsit> is not sufficient to meet 
the regulatory requirements for this cri8erio;i. 
Accordingly. the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion 
Documentation of the alien's r~wrnhership in cl$tociulion\ in lhe field for 119hich 
cluss~ficution is sozqhf. ~shich ~eqzlir-c oz~f~~un~ling LIC~~~IVI~ZP~~~, of /heif. nzemhe~.s, us 
judged by recognized n~i/io17uI o~ ~I~JCI"IIU/I~~~I/ CY/)C>I*I\ ill //IC)~Y Ll'i.\cij3line~ or- field%\ 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterio~l based on his membership with the Venezuelan 
Society of Nephrology (VSN) and the American Societj of Nephrology (ASN). The petitioner 
submitted evidence establishing that the petitioner has been an associate member of VSN since 1991 
and has been a corresponding member with ASN since 1991. 
In order to demonstrate that inembership in an association meets this criterion. a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding acliiei ement us an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requiremenis based oil e~:iplo; ~ntnt or actii ity in a given field. minimum 
education or experience. standardi~ed test scores. grde point akerage. recommendations by 
colleagues or current members. or payment of dues do not satisfy tliis criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achiekements. Further. the o~erall prestige of a giken association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
On appeal, regarding VSN, the petitioner stated that "[tlhe condition for belonging is to be a doctor 
specializing in nephrology." Howe~er. the petitioner failed to submit an) documentary evidence 
supporting this assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary ebidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden oi' proor in these proceedings. ,bfu/ter. of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. Notwithstanding, the petitioner failrcl to establish that membership with VSN 
requires outstanding achievement bj its members, a3 judged bj recognized national or international 
experts. We are not persuaded bj the petitioner's claim that being a doctor specializing in 
nephrology is sufficient alone to establish eligibility for tliis criterion. In addition, there is no 
evidence establishing that nationally or internationally recognized experts judge the applicants for 
membership with VSN. Instead, based on the petitioner's own unsupported assertion, only being a 
doctor specializing in nephrologj is a prerequisite for nienibership nith VSN. Thus, membership 
with VSN is based on occupational status and not based on t~utstantiiiig achievenlents in nephrology, 
as judged by nationally or internationailq recogni/eu e'il7t" 15. 
Regarding ASN, the petitioner failed LO submit an) docul:lc~ltar> eL idonce regarding membership 
requirements. However, according to ASh's mebsite'. obtained 1'1-0111 the letter submitted by the 
petitioner from the ASN membership department. thc requirements for membership are as follows: 
1. Active Member ($275 menlbership fee) - An individual who holds an MD, 
PhD, or the equivalent, resides in North or Central America. and fulfills at least 
one of the following criteria: 
Completion of research or cli~~ical triiining ill nephrologj; 
I See h i I. I I I I 1 I I I-i ,L $3 j7,l . acc,:ksed on Jantlas! 12. 20 10, and incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
Page 6 
- Speciali~ed trainlng in neplirolog~ during residency or other relevant 
postgraduate education; 
Publication of at least one peer-re\ ieued paper in ~iephrology: or 
Experience as a specialist in hidney disease and related conditions; or 
2. Corresponding Member ($275 membership tee) - An individual who meets the 
criteria for active n~embership but resides outside North or Central America. 
As cited above, the petitioner is a corresponding member with ASN. While ASN's membership 
requirements provide standards and narrow membership to those lio achieke a le\ el of training and 
experience, those standards fail to reflect that outstanding achievetnent is an essential condition for 
membership. As indicated aboke. ue are not persuaded illat completing research. specializing in 
training, publishing at least one peer-reviemed paper. and occupational experience are commensurate 
with the requirements necessarj to establish eligibility fbr this highly restrictive classification. 
Further, the petitioner failed to establish that menibership uith ASN requires outstanding 
achievement as judged by recogni~ed national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets [his criterion. 
Published materiul uhol~~ rhe (iiion 111 j~ro/e\\~o~i~~/ 01 IIIL~~O,~ //.lrde ~~zihl~cu/ion~ or other 
major media, reluling /o /he ulien') 11'01,k it/ il12 jlolt~ /or. li 17i~i1 eIu\\ific~~lio~~ j\ \ozight. 
Such evidence shall in~'111de /ho /i/l~~. ~Iu/e, ~1nd LILI//IOI. o,f /IIO IJZ(~/CI.~~, CIM~ unj3 IIC~~.\ wry 
translut ion. 
The petitioner submitted a list of books and medical ~nagazines and journals where the petitioner's 
research was cited. However, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
that the published material be "about" the petitioner relating to his work. ('ompare 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of 
the Act, which only requires published material about thi: alien's uork. Articles authored by the 
petitioner, or articles and books miiich cite the pztitioner's u,>rk. but nor the petitioner himself, are not 
published material about the petitioner relating to 111s \\orb. rhus, ~1.1iiIe his publications and citations 
therein are not relevant to this criterion. they will be considered belou as they relate to the significance 
of the petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that lie meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the ulien ',c ol'igin~11 ~cie~tific, s~~hol~~i*Iy. C~I./~C/~C, uthlelic, or business- 
related contributions of ntlljor \~~M~~;(.NP?L*P in /IIC fiokl. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims ei~gibil~ly for .his cr~lerion bj staling: 
I have developed a worhing hypothesis that needs to be pro\en or denied, based on the 
presumption that it is scientilically possible to build a s~~iall device, placed it in 
permanently under the skin ol' the patient-spccific in the inguinal region. which is 
undergoing dialysis because ol' end-stage renal disease carrier. and this device will be 
able to produce an ultrafiltered containing the niajor uremic toxins that daniage and 
suffering to the patient. and liquids must be removed as usual. all of which will drain 
into the bladder of the patient. This device mould be connected inside the patient to the 
original renal artery and vein of the patient and the patient's own ureter, the latter 
draining into the bladder of the patient. 'lhe internal structure of the device that I called 
High Efficiency glomerulus (HEC;). consists of a single glomeri~lus artificial (remember 
that the normal person there are rouglilq three million in each hidney glomeruli). made 
from biocompatible materials. long high et'ficienc> and capable of fi~lfilling the mission 
of removing urenlic toxins and fluids. uliich uould be achieved as a result and thanks 
to the design of a unique and complex internal architecture mhich mould bc equipped 
with this device, which emulated the glomerular tangle of human beings. but with high 
capacity to multiply these functions. If it debice worh and gi~e gods results - it which 
has to be designed and is maiting to be deeply researched and developed by this humble 
physician - would release the current tjpe of diaiqsis is more than three thousand 
patients living with this therapy in tlie llnited States. and niillions around the world. I 
want to establish that this is the jcb i uant to dsvelop and implement enhanced with an 
immigrant visa ~vhicli I aspire. 
The petitioner failed to submit any documentar> evidence establishing the existence of his working 
hypothesis. Going on record without supporting document,u.> evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof' in these proceedings. ,\lu//cr. of '5'offic.i. 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In 
addition, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "Lelvidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scliolarly. artistic. athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." By the petitioner's omn adliiission. his working hypothesis has never been 
proven or denied; therefore, the pelitiorler failed to eslablish that his  ork king hypothesis is an 
original scientific contribut~on oi' niqjor qignificancc to !nedicini:. Finally. me can not consider 
evidence simply based on a uorkrng hq potliesis or theories that ma! or may not have the potential of 
working in the future. Eligibility must be established at tlie time ol'filing. 8 C.F.K. $8 103.2(b)(l), 
(1 2); Mutler uf Kufigbak, 14 I&N Dee. 45. 40 (Regl. Co1111nr. 1 97 1 ). i\ petition cannot be approved 
at a future date after the petitioner become:, eligible ilndcr a neu set of facts. 121u//cr. of Izummi, 22 
I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Com~n'r. 1998). I'hat decibion fitrtliel. provide\. citing Mui/cr of Buru'ouille, 18 
I&N Dec. 1 14 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider Iacts tliat conle into being onlj subsequent to 
the filing of a petition." It/. at 176. 
The petitioner also submitted recom~iientiation letters lion? of 
Stanford University Medical C'e 
Department of Veterans Affairs. 
established nephrologist at tliat time and utilized his training 
with to try ~nd make a difikrcnce in thc lives of dialysis patients in 
Venezuela. He had been a leading advocatc of better access for patients and set out 
plans nationally to prokide high quality, ef'fectike and safe dialysis fhr patients. He has 
had a distinguished career as a physician in Iiis home country but the political climate 
there has made it impossible to scrke his patients arid cornmunit> in the way that he 
feels is reasonable. 
We found [the petitioner] to be an excellent \vorker. reliable. and a definite benefit to 
our medical staff. [The petitioner] perfi~rmed his vol~uiteer duties assisting in the 
Nephrology section. In the time [the petitioner] has been uith us. we have received 
nothing but high praises from his superb isor\ and co-uorhers for his outstanding work. 
[The petitioner] is to be commended for all the donated hours ol'volunteer senice and 
it is only with the support of volunteers like [the petitioner]. that we are able to give 
veteran patients the best possible care. 
In this case, the recommendation letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without neight. cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or ~nternational acclaim. IiSCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as eupcrt testimony. 1 he iratutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international declaim" necessitates e~ idence of recognition beyond the 
alien's immediate acquaintances. Scc section b)()()(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. # 204.5(11)(3). 1'~lrtlier. LJSC'IS may. in its discretion. use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimonj. Soe I\JLI:/(JI, of ( 'LII.OM I~?IC~ML~/~~~ILII. 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Conimr. 1988). kiowe~rer. USCIS is ultiniatelj responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 7'he subnlission of letters of 
support from the petitioner's personal con~acts in rlot prcsiin~ptive evidence of eligibility; USClS 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to uhether thej support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and hou the) bec;lrne aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important consideration\. E~en \vIien urit~en by independent experti. letters solicited 
by an alien in support of any imlnigrarior~ petition  re of less weight than preexisting. independent 
evidence or original contributions of ma-jor significance tIi,it one tvould expect of an itldi\,idual who 
has sustained national or international acclaini at the vcrj top of the tield. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting. independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the petitioner, they fail to 
provide any examples of contributions of major significance in his field. In evaluating the reference 
letters, they do not specifically identif) how his cotitrib~tions have i~iflue~iced the field; rather, the 
two letters generally discuss his job sLills. Vl'c ~ILISI 11c)tt; ]:ere thar an individual uho has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the her! top oi'rlie lieici shoul(i be able to subiiiit a multitude of 
reference and recommendation letlers instead oi'iust ~LLO I~'ttcrs. WC lilrthcr note that the letter from 
- is dated Nove~nber 29. 1990. approximatel) 18 ycars prior to the tiling of the 
petition. The petitioner only submitted one current recommendation letter 
Letters from independent references mho uere previously auale of the petitioner through his 
reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not prc~iously aware of the petitioner ,111d are merely responding to a 
Page 9 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and lvork and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately. evidence in esistence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especiali~ for submission with tlie petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaini should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaini. Vague. solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not 
specifically identify contributions or ho\v those contributions hake influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kuzuriun v. US'C'IS. 5 80 F.3d 1 030. 1 036 (0"' Cir. 2000). 
The petitioner also submitted a self-compiled list of books and niagazines where the petitioner 
claims that his "research is mentioned." Houever. the petitioner failed to submit the actual articles 
or relevant text of the books establish~ng that his \\orl< was cited and discussed. We find that the 
submission of a list of books and arliclcs is il~auf'ficient to ebtablisl: that the petiiioner's work has 
been cited, discussed. or debatcd ts itho~ the relc~ ant text ol articles. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R.. 5 204.5(h)(i)(v). an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. U'e must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of science. it can be expected that the results would have already been 
reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their uork. Otherwise, it is difficult to 
gauge the impact of the petitioner's uork. In 'iddition. the petitioner's occupation is research-driven, 
and there would be little point in prblishing resea~.ch that did not add to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field. 
Moreover, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 
8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We mill not presiune that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise 
would render meaningless the statutory reqilirenient fix extensive evidence or the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See ul.so Kuzurian v. liS('I,Y, 580 F.3d 
at 1036 (publications and presentatiolis are in~~~fficient absent evidence that they constitute 
contributions of mujor significance). 
While the petitioner claims to be ckclrking 011 a hypothesis anti silbniitted two recommendation 
letters, the record fails to reflect any evidence of the petitioner's original work ofnla,jor significance 
to his field. While the evidence denionstrates the petitioner's uorh ~ith dialysis patients. it falls far 
short of establishing eligibility lbr this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he riiects this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's ~LIIII~I.(~I~ of ~chol~11.1~~ ~ll~iicle\ it? /he field, in profi,c.tional or 
major trude pubII'cut~~n~ or o/h~?* 171ujor 111ed!'u 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
The effort I made as a doctor has bee11 combined uith my fight against the dictatorship 
suffered severe Vene~uela, as shown in my mritiligs published in national newspapers, 
which it has cost me not get financing for mj 111edical research pro.jects on dialysis. and 
have been threatened by those who govern Vene~uela tor having said these views 
publicly. 
The petitioner also submitted the following articles: 
1. The End Depends on /l?e Principle. El Ilniversal, .Iulj~ 15. 2004; 
2. Tarquinio /he Sohcrhio. El Uni\ ersal, April 14, 2006; 
3. The Ener~?' n1115/ he u ,\'c111 FEir'lnu~~ Jilpi/. I:i liniversal. June 3. 2008. 
4. Barrio Adenlro I '.s hledic.i/ic for Liille .\el\ lo All. k,I Unikcrsal. Ju1) 2. 2008; 
and 
5. Trials Poprrlur hltr/erni(v ,Zh~cli~11. t:l iJnivcr\al. Aug~~st 4, 2008. 
However, English translations accompanjing the articles fail to comply with 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3), 
which requires that "[alny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete 
and accurate, and by the transistor's certification that he or she is competent to translate fiom the 
foreign language into English." The English tra~islations failed to contain the name of the 
translators, were not certified as complete and accilriite, a~ld l'ailecl to indicate that the translators 
were competent to translate fiom the foreign language into English. 13ecause the petitioner failed to 
comply with 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). the AAO cannot determine ~thether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims. Accordingly. the evidence is not probative antl will not be accorded any weight 
in this proceeding. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field. in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." The articles submitted by tlie pcliuoner appear to be political opinion articles and not 
scholarly articles relating to the petitioner's lii.id 01' sc1cnc<. In ;iilclition, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary e~idence establishiilg thai 1;1 [Jnikersal is a prol'essional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted the fhllow ing scl~olasl~ articles: 
1. Relutions hip Beh4eerz Glj colylzc Ac/it7i/y IM Er y/h~.ocyle,c and Glucose 
Intolerunce rrz L r.enirtr (I 1). Ilc.ti!od~t~ly~ I c ifiD). ~117(! C'onlrnz~ozis Anzhzrlutory 
Peritoneul L>IU~'J~\~\ (( '.11'14). K~uney Intei~iatiotlal. .lanuary 1985: 
2. uin in, 1 I' 4 L'~/I'!/J 117 c1.1 f:?i'oc yle fi'onl D~cilyzcd und 
Nondiulj~zeu' (i~,c~nic I'LIII~)U/ ,. Ncpl~ron. I Okh: 
3. Buckfiltrtitiol? Ill11"1n~ I)~LI~J \I\ ''1 ('I,I/~L LI~ . I\ SC'~ \1i1(>n/. Seminaries of Dialysis, 
January - March 1 992; and 
4. An In Vivo Antrlj>\ic o; Re~.c)r\e lJl/rcrfillrrr/iot~ 1)rn.itig EIlgh-Flus rcnd High- 
Efficiency Dzulvcl,, American .Io~u~ial of Kidney Diseases. May 1992. 
Page 1 1 
The petitioner also submitted abstracts lor the follo\zing presentations: 
1. Relutionship Be/u)een C;/~~col~./ic ,lc/i~~i/~ in Er~/h/+oc;~~/e.r (CII~ G111co~e 
Intolerance in Ihen~ilr ([I). He'~.n~o~lirrlj~ci\ (/ID), und ('ontinuou,, ilnzhultrto~~y 
Peritor2eul Diulysic (C'APIJ), The American Society of Nephrology. December 
9-12. 1984: 
2. Erythrocytic (;I~~coly/ic ilc/i\?i/y unll C?llic'ow~ /~1/01cr(incc in Dialyzed und 
Nondulyzed {Jrcmic Pr{ticr?/,<. Xth International ('o~~gress of Nephrology. July 
26-3 1. 1987: 
3. Erythropoie ,c,t untl J,'I~-~~TI,~/)O~CII~ ,Woo(/ l cvcl t (Z:/') in Rul.5 ~r)i/ll Z!o~le/'~lfe 
Renu1 Fui1ln.e (XIRI.) trnu' ltidlrcild ,11101111~. l lie 4merican Society of 
Nephrology, December 13-1 6. 1987; 
4. Increw ed Tumor h'cc~.o<z Eirc/ol. Lc~tel,, E'ollo~t ing C'11prop11ane H~'~nodiuly\i.~, 
American Society of Nephrologj. December 3-6. lC)89; 
5. High Flux Dialysii. Red~lces 7zrmor ,Vecro,\ie Fuctor Levels. American Society 
for Artificial Internal Organs, April 24-27. 1990; and 
6. Phosphale C'le~n.uncc, During High F1zi.x Ife~noiliul~~,i\ 111ifh PAN and C'T 
Memhrunec. Xlth Inter~l~tional C0ngrt.s of lut.phro1og.c. .July 15-20. 1990. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(3) psovidcs that "la1 petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by ekidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognifed in the lield of expertise." The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.I:.K. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates. retlects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of elidea\ or. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent wlth the regulator> clefinition ol' "extraordinary ability" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is ,me of that sr,iall percent,t%e ulio have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.t7.R. 3 ';_04.5(11)(2). 111 1hi3 C'iisC. tlx pctilioner's iast scholarly article 
was published in May 1992. a period of o\er 16 qea1.s ti-om tiit. tiling of the petition, and the 
petitioner's last presentation occurred in .lull. 1090. a perii~J 01'o\er 18 jears fi-om the filing of the 
petition. As such, the petitioner failed tt) establish thc r2cluisite hustained national or international 
acclaim. In addition, we do not find ebidence that the petitionei.'~ authorship of four scholarly 
articles is sufficient to establish the le~e1 of acclaim required fhr this highly restrictike classification. 
While we acknowledge that we niust a\oid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular 
approach to require some evitlence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in a 
field where publication is expected of tl-~ose liierejq completing trainlng in the field. kizuu'iun v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d at 1036. Furthermore, tl~e petitioner failed to si~n!nit an! documentary evidence 
establishing that Kidney International. I\Jepliron. Setninarl~;~ of I)~~il>sis. and American Journal of 
Kidney Diseases are professional or major trade publicatio~i\ or othcr niajor media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not establ~shed that lie meet.; this criterion. 
Evidence tha/ /he   lien bus con~~~zcmc/c.~/ u high \LI/LII~I' 01' OI~IPI. sjgnific-llnilj high 
rernunerution,for c.er~-ic*cj.\, in 1"01~l/ion to o/her.\ in /he field. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he has an "income higher than those of [his] peers." The petitioner 
submitted an undated letter from of Administration for - 
, who stated: 
I note that [the petitioner] senes as hledical 1)ireclor of Illis Institution since January 
1999, earn a salarj of ten thousand seien hiundrcd and kift) bolixars (Rs. 10.750.00) per 
month, equivalent to five thousand dollars ($5.000.00) per month. sixty thousand dollars 
($60,000.00) per annun1 (official exchange equal Hs. 2.1 5 per 1 dollar). 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence showing 
that the petitioner "has comnianded a high salary or other significailtly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field." I Iouever. the petitioner hiiecl to submit any documentary 
evidence comparing his salary to others in his field. The petitioner offers no basis for comparison 
showing that his compensation \\as signifjcantl!, high in rc:lation to others in his tield. There is no 
evidence establishing that the petitioner. has car1:ed a ic~ei 01' co~npc~r~s~tion tliat places him among the 
highest paid physicians in his fieid. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to ~neet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. E~en in the aggregate. the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage \irlio has risen to the \cry top of the field of 
endeavor. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achiekec.1 ~u>~tained i~arronal or. in~er~iatic\nal acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to rhe \er> top of the lield 01 clldea\c,r. 
Review of the record. however. does 11ot establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
physician to such an extent that he n13y be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. As stated above, while the 
documentary evidence failed to establish eligibility under any of the regulatory criteria, the petitioner 
submitted evidence for events occurrins inany years pior io the filing of the petition. The evidence is 
not persuasive that the petitioner's achievcnlents set hlrn significantly ahove almost all others in his 
field and has sustained the required nati~jnal or inteniational Licclaill- I heretore. the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to sctctioi~ :!O.;(h)( 1 )(A, 01' ~lle Act :tnc~ the pctition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains elltirel! nit11 the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly. the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.