dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-J-N-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 22, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a D surgeon and researcher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, asserting that he fulfills at 
least three of the ten criteria and has demonstrated extraordinary ability. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of R-J-N-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only one 
of the initial evidentiary criteria, scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record 
supports a finding that the Petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion. For example, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications such as Brazilian 
Journal of Orthopedics and Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques. Further, the evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in his field under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) by serving as a member of the resident selection committee at I I 
~--~!Hospital evaluating candidates for admission into its orthopedics residency program. In 
addition, he provided documentation indicating that he has received a high salary relative to other 
orthopedists under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies 
three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
2 
Matter of R-J-N-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner indicates that he is a physician, medical consultant, and researcher specializing in the 
fields of orthopedics and I I surf ery. According to his curriculum vitae, the Petitioner attended 
medical school at the University of I (1997-2002), completed his orthopedic residency 
training at c:=JMedical School (2002-20r81. and nartic,ated in an "Endoscopy and Minimally 
Invasive I I Surgery" fellowship at the~----~ Hospital in South Korea (2008-2009). 
Moreover, the Petitioner indicated that he worked "' a preceptor doctr ;2006-20161 and assistant 
professor (2009-2016) atc=JMedical School, founder and director of Clinic (2010-
2016), and manager of the Orthopedics Department'sLJProgram at !Hospital 
(2014-2016) in Brazil. 2 As mentioned above, the Petit10ner Judged others within the medical field, 
authored scholarly articles, and has commanded a high salary. The record, however, does not 
demonstrate that his achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding his service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive clasyfication See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. As a member of the resident 
selection committee at !Hospital, the Petitioner evaluated candidates seeking admission 
into the Orthopedics Department's residency program. Likewise, he larticirted in the selection of 
medical school graduates for entry into thel I residency at Medical School. While 
the Petitioner was involved in selecting candidates for residency programs at the medical institutions 
where he worked, the record does not show that such judging capacity is indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The evidence does not 
demonstrate, for instance, that he garnered wide attention from the field based on his service as an 
evaluator of residency candidates for his two employers. Nor has the Petitioner established that being 
given the role of evaluating residency candidates who are in the early stages of their career is reflective 
of extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
1 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
2 The Petitioner filed his Form T-140 in July 2018, but has not offered any records of his work experience or medical 
appointments after June 2016. 
3 
Matter of R-J-N-
In addition, the Petitioner presented two certificates stating that he "participated as evaluator of the 
scientific works" forl !University's Medical Congress in 2009 and 2012. These certificates, 
however, did not provide information relating to whose work the Petitioner judged or the specific 
subject matter he evaluated. 3 
Here, the Petitioner has not established that the aforementioned instances of participation as a judge 
place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). He has 
not shown, for example, how the number of evaluations or medical conferences he participated in 
compares to others at the top of the field. Furthermore, the record reflects that his participation as an 
evaluator occurred in 2009 and 2012. He did not demonstrate that these two instances contribute to a 
finding that he has a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. at 59. Moreover, the record does not show the distinction of this conference coordinated by his 
medical institution or that his involvement was indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim placing him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, authorship of scholarly articles does not automatically place an individual at the top of their 
field. Here, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he coauthored various research articles, 
medical case studies, and book chapters. 4 However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this 
publication record is reflective of being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of medical 
researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his articles can be an indicator to 
determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence 
has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the 
Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other researchers 
have been influenced by his work. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not shown a level of interest in his published work from others in the 
field that is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. While the record includes some evidence of citations to his research, the Petitioner did not 
show that these citations represent attention at a level consistent with being among small percentage 
at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did not compare 
his citation statistics to others in his field of endeavor who are recognized as already being at the top 
3 Participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Without evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, such as 
evidence that he has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, served 
in editorial positions for distinguished journals or publications, or chaired technical committees for reputable conferences, 
the Petitioner has not established that his peer review experience places him among that small percentage at the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
4 The record also includes articles the Petitioner wrote tori [ a Brazilian health and wellness portaL but 
these articles are not "scholarly" in nature. Instead, they are written for members of the public at large seeking information 
about medical treatment and care. A scholarly aiticle should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is 
defined as having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having 
profound knowledge of a field. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 supra, at 9. 
4 
Matter of R-J-N-
in the field. Nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that his published work has garnered 
attention at a level indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In addition, although the Petitioner presented "average" wage information from Salario.com.br, 
Exame.abril.com.br, and Terra.com.br showing that he earns a salary that is well above average for 
orthopedists in Brazil, this information is not sufficient to demonstrate that his earnings are tantamount 
to those of an individual who is among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Without sufficient information or evidence showing the full range of 
salaries for orthopedists, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his earnings represent a level of 
compensation commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, for the reasons discussed below, we find that the 
additional evidence in the record neither fulfills the requirements of any further evidentiary criteria 
nor contributes to an overall finding that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim 
and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's awards 5, he presented letters from the Brazilian Society of Orthopedics and 
Traumatolo SBOT statin that his article entitled I I 
received a "Best Poster A ward" and a "Best Oral 
Theme Award" at the 39th ~----------------------~ m 
I I 2007. In addition, the record includes information about SBOT ~ web portal, 
including al 12018 announcement and welcome message for the 50thl__J In a · · 
the Petitioner provided a "Call for Papers" and "Paper Submission Guidelines" for the,....;5:....;0:....:t:;:i...-,-~ 
from its website. The record also contains a brief announcement relating to "Ipe Fifth,___ _ ___. Rio 
de Janeiro,! I 1942" printed in Annals o_f Surgery in. I) 942 6 Furthermore 
the Petitioner submitted a 2013 article in Acta Ortopedica Brasileira, entitled [ I 
The abstract for this article states: 
"OBJECTIVE: To quantify the publication rates of papers presented at the 2007 I ) .... 
CONCLUSION: The I !publication rate is lower than 30%. Many of the papers presented at the 
I ldoes not pass the scrutiny of scient~fic journals and therefore should not be the only source of 
scientific update .... " (Emphasis added). 
While the Petitioner presented information about the 5th and 50thl ltroin its organizers and a 
scientific article analyzing the publication rates of papers from the 39thl Kwhere he received his 
Best Poster and a Best Oral Theme awards), this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate his awards 
from the 39t~ lare nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. In addition, even considering these awards from more than a decade ago, the Petitioner has 
not shown that they are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim or his status among 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
6 This announcement contains an "Editor's Note" stating: "Unfortunately, we received the announcement of this meeting 
too late to include details of the program in ouiO[l 942] issue. However, in the interest of Medicine in South America, 
we are privileged to print the following outline of the Congress." 
5 
Matter of R-J-N-
As further evidence of his awards, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on receiving a fellowship to 
pursue medical and research training at the I I Hospital in South Korea. The record 
contains information from I I Hospital's website stating that its "fellowship program is 
designed to provide fellows with intensive training in diagnosis and treatment ofl I 
and research to meet this growing demand. The fellows will 
~l-ea_rn_t_o_e_v_a-lu_a_t_e_a_n_d_t_r-ea_t_r_o_u_t1-.n-e_a_n_d~complicatedl I .... " The Petitioner has not 
offered sufficient evidence demonstrating that this fellowship for advanced training in his specialty 
rises to the level of a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in his field. Nor 
has he shown that its receipt indicates that he "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With respect to the Pe~s memberships 7, he provided ridence indicating that he ij a member of 
SBOT, the BrazilianL__JAssociation, the Society for.__ ________ ____. Surgery, the 
Regional Council of Medicine of Sao Paulo, and the World Institute of Pain. Although the Petitioner 
presented information about these associations, including their admission regulations and bylaws, this 
documentation does not reflect that membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. Rather, the evidence indicates membership is determined 
based on medical training, residency experience, passing examinations, and professional certifications. 
The Petitioner has not shown that these requirements rise to the level of outstanding achievements, 
nor does membership represent an individual who is among the small percentage at the very top of the 
field. As the Petitioner has not shown, for example, that he is a member of associations that limit 
membership to individuals with renowned accomplishments, his membership evidence does not 
contribute to a finding that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding published material 8, the Petitioner presented articles in publications such as O Estado de 
Sao Paulo, Caras9, Jornal da Or/a, Jornal de Caruaru, Jornal Local, Mais Equilibria, Saude Em 
Alerta, Rnews, Minuto Biomedicina, Essencia do Corpo, and Melhor Amiga. The record, however, 
does not include sufficient evidence demonstrating that any of these publications are professional 
publications or that they rise to the level of major media. 1° Furthermore, these articles are either not 
about the Petitioner, or they do not identify an author. For instance, the article in Jornal de Caruaru 
is about the benefits of exercising 30 minutes each day and only mentions the Petitioner in passing. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that he was interviewed aboutl I pain and treatment by Radio 
CBN, BandNews TV, and Radio Globo AM. 11 While the Petitioner provided information about these 
7 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
8 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
9 The article in Caras is self-authored by the Petitioner regarding! !treatment; it is not published material 
about him. .__ ___ __. 
10 As evidence regarding the publications in which the above material appeared, the Petitioner offered screenshots from 
Similar Web regarding rankings and "traffic overview" for each of the aforementioned websites. For example, Similar 
Web reflects that Caras has a global rank of20,224, a country rank of 1,019, and a category rank of 145. The Petitioner, 
however, did not demonstrate the significance of these Internet rankings and viewing statistics or explain how such 
information reflects status as major media. 
11 The transcripts from these interviews indicate that the subject of the programming was I land treatment, and 
not the Petitioner and his particular achievements. 
6 
Matter of R-J-N-
broadcasters, the record does not include sufficient evidence showing that the specific news programs 
or shows in which the Petitioner appeared constitute major media. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that the aforementioned media coverage is reflective of his status as an individual who has 
garnered "sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation." See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
In regard to the Petitioner's contributions to the field 12, he contends that he "was the first surgeon to 
implement a minimally invasive procedure for I I surgery in Brazil." However, according to the 
article he provided in Melhor A1;;a, this '1echniHue was developed and improved by the 
neurosurgeon I I of I Hospital (Seoul)." While the Petitioner may 
have been among the first to introdu: Is procedure in Brazil after receiving training in that 
technique during his I I fellowship in South Korea, the evidence does not show the Petitioner 
devised or substantially improved the aforementioned procedure, or that his specific work otherwise 
rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
The record contains recommendation letters that summarize the Petitioner's medical training, 
experience in performing advanced surgical techniques, job responsibilities, and professional 
accomplishments, such as completing fellowships, presenting at conferences, and publishing articles 
and book chapters. 13 For example,.__ ________ __,, chief professor of ortho~edics and 
traumatology at I I Medical School, indicated that the Petitioner returned from his l.___ __ ___. 
fellowship and "began to perform new procedures with innovative and less invasive techniques 
contributing to the care of our patients and passing on those techniques to our team of specialists in 
LJsurgery, for instance image guideJ !infiltration and microendoscopicl I 
by microscopy." The record, however, does not show that the Petitioner invented or remarkably 
advanced these medical techniques, that his particular surgical methods have affected the orthopedics 
field in a substantial way, or that his work otherwise constitutes contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
In addition,! ~' head of the orthopedic and surgery department atl I 
Hospital, asserted that the Petitioner "initiated the creation of the Sub-specialty inl !Surgery" at 
that hospital. I I further stated that the Petitioner "participated as one of the mentors for the 
first specialists comping out of the program forl lsurgery." The Petitioner, however, has not 
offered sufficient evidence showing that his work on this project had a meaningful impact to the overall 
field beyond his hospital. The language of this regulatory criterion requires that the Petitioner's 
original contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting his employer. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The recommendation letters offered by the Petitioner are insufficient to show that his achievements 
have been considered by the field to be of major significance. Moreover, they do not contain detailed 
information showing the unusual influence or high impact his contributions have had on the overall 
field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to 
12 See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
13 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
Matter of R-J-N-
the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 14 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics 
and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting original contributions of major significance in the field. 15 Here, the 
letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient 
corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a 
solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition, the Petit~Iered documentation indicating that he spoke at the 39th I I and 
presented a course at L___JUniversity of Sao Paulo. While this documentation demonstrates that 
the Petitioner's findings were shared with others and that he taught a course in his specialty, he has 
not established that his activities in-and-of-themselves show the major significance of his 
contributions. Further, the Petitioner has not established that the number of his conference 
presentations and course offerings is significant or demonstrates the required sustained national or 
international acclaim for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
With respect to his positions atl I Medical School and I I Hospital, the Petitioner 
contends that his roles for these organizations were leading or critical. 16 The record includes letters 
of support from I I and I O l chief and professor ofc::J surgery at D 
Medical School. These letters discuss the Petitioner's duties as a preceptor doctor atc=]Medical 
School training medical students and orthopedic residents, evaluating candidates for residency 
positions, and sharinF, surgical techniques with other specialists. In addition, the Petitioner provided 
letters froml and I ~' coordinator and professor of orthopedics and traumrology I 
atl !Hospital. Their letters describe the Petitioner's duties as a physician at 
I I Hospital managing and developing thd !Treatment Project, initiating 
instructional programs, preparing treatment protocols, training residents, and mentoring specialists. 
The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that his roles for D Medical School and I I I I Hospital reflect his leading or critical role for these organizations overall. As it relates to a 
leading role, he did not provide evidence to establish where his positions fit within the overall 
bi:rarcbv at =Medical School arl I Hospital. Further, although the letters fromD 
I _ ~ !discuss the Petitioner's projects in theirl I 
orthopedics departments, they do not indicate that his positions were leading or critical for the 
aforementioned medical school or hospital overall. In addition, their letters do not explain how the 
Petitioner's role was leading compared to these organizations' faculty or I depa
1
ment heads, nor did 
their statements indicate that his work was of significant importance for Medical School and 
I I Hospital's success or standing so as to demonstrate a critical role. Furthermore, while 
the Petitioner provided evidence indicating that I I Hospital has a distinguished 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
15 Id. At 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in paii 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters the repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
16 See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
8 
Matter of R-J-N-
reputation, the information froml !Medical School's website alone is not sufficient to show that 
this school has earned a distinguished reputation. 17 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that his employment in the aforementioned roles was reflective 
of, or resulted in, widespread acclaim from his field or was commensurate with being at the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that his roles 
at c=]Medical School and I I Hospital were representative of sustained national or 
international acclaim or a "career of acclaimed work in the field." 18 See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act; H.R. Rep. No. at 59. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the 
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that 
there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record 
insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-J-N-, ID# 3681821 (AAO July 22, 2019) 
17 Organizations or establishments must be recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11. 
18 In addition, the Petitioner has not offered any evidence of his medical positions or appointments after June 2016. 
9