dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16897920 
Certification of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 23, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a physiatrist specialist , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability . See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(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 . 
In the latest decision, the Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that 
although the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria , as required, he did not 
show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 1 On October 27, 2021, the Director certified the 
decision to our office for review. The Petitioner has not submitted a legal brief on certification. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will affirm the Director's denial 
of the petition. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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, 
1 The Director denied the petition and dismissed the Petitioner's subsequentjoint motion to reopen and reconsider , and the 
matter came before us on appeal from the dismissal of the motions. We determined thatthe Director erroneously dismissed 
the motions as untimely filed. We , therefore , withdrew the Director 's decision and remanded the matter for further 
consideration and entry of a new decision which, if adverse, was to be ce1tified to us for review. The Director's initial 
certified decision dated January 2021 did not contain, as required , a Notice of Certification (Form I-290C) notifying the 
Petitionerofthe right to submit a brief to us within 30 days of the notice . 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extrao rdin ary ability , and 
(iii) the a lien ' s entry into the Unit ed States will sub stantiall y benefit prospectiv ely 
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 demonstraterecognition 
of his or herachievements in the field through a one-time achievement(thatis, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation 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) . 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a physiatrist speecializing in the treatment o with the use of 
He received his medical degree from the 
in 1998 and com leted his residency in physical medicine and rehabilit ation at the 
_____________ in 2004 . At the time of filing the petition in September 2018 
the Petitioner indicated he was employed as head of the h sical medicine and rehabilitation 
department at I I physiatrist at assistant 
professor of medical residents at the neurological rehabilitation unit at the 
I I director of the medical rehabilitation unitl I and consultant for the laboratories 
ll and I I on the use oc=Jin neurorehabilitation. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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 his certified decision , the Director determined that the Petitioner met 
four of those criteria: published material under 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(iii), judging under 8 C.F.R . 
§ 2 04 .5 (h )(3 )(iv) , scholarly articles under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5 (h)(3 )( vi), and leading or critical role under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Although we do not agree with the Director's decision regarding the 
published materials criterion , the record reflects that the Petitioner satisfies three of the evidentiary 
2 
criteria. 2 The documentation submitted indicates that the Petitioner has served as a judge for the 23rd 
Congress of the Latin American Medical Association for Rehabilitation in 2008 and published his 
research in journals, thus satisfying the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The record also 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has held a leading or critical role with his current employer I 
_____ and includes evidence of the hospital's distinguished reputation in the field. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contested the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the criteria 
related to lesser awards and memberships and asserted the Director did not consider the totality of 1he 
evidence in the record in making his determination. 3 Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that he 
satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence, including evidence submitted in 
support of those criteria, in the context of the final merits dete1mination below. 4 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, 1hat 
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 )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3 ); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 5 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner judged others within his field, authored scholarly articles, and 
performed in a leading role. We have also considered evidence related to an award he received during 
his residency at the his membership in associations, 
and published materials in ce1iain media. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his 
achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
2 Regarding the published materials criterion, the record indicates that the Petitioner was interviewed regarding topics in 
chronic pain anddisa bility forthetelevisionprograms in 2012 and I tin 2014 which were 
broadcast on the I ltelevisionnetwork, and for the radio program in 2014. However, the 
Petitioner did not provide a transcription of the video or radio coverage demonstrating published material a bout him 
relating to his work. See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-
chapter-2 (providing guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy the regulat01y criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
J..1.Q£5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the television shows I and I 
or the radio program I represeyi a ma i jor medium. Although the Petitioner provided general 
information about the television network in the issue is whetherthese shows are a major medium. 
3 The Director a !so determined that the Petitioner did not satisfytheclaim ed criteria re lated original contributions and high 
salary. On appeaL the Petitioner requested we "disregard" the evidence submitted under the original contributions criterion 
and consider it under the criterion related to scholarly articles. 
4 See 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory c1iteria in part one alone 
does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual ofextraordinaryability under 
section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act). 
5 See also Id. (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 lev e 1 of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
3 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinaty 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 6 The record 
indicates that at the time of filing, the Petitioner had served as a tribunal member reviewing and 
selecting I for the 23rd Congress of the Latin American Medical Association for 
rehabilitation in 2008. Participating on a tribunal does not automatically 
demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of his field. In evaluating this evidence in the final merits determination, the Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner had performed as a juror at that conference. The Director determined 
that because invitations to peer review the work of others can be routine in the Petitioner's field, this 
evidence alone did not demonstrate that he is at the top of the field or otherwise establish his sustained 
national or international acclaim. We agree with the Director's determination. The record does not 
contain evidence that the nature of the peer review work he has performed is reserved for the small 
percentage at the very top of the field, such as evidence that he had reviewed an unusually large number 
of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an 
editorial position for a distinguished journal. 
The Petitioner claims he has completed other judging duties, such as serving on thesis review 
committees forthd in 2008 for the works titled 
'and 
" However, while the record contains invitations to 
participate in the judging, it lacks evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner completed those 
activities. 7 Moreover, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that the invitations to 
participate are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition of his 
accomplishments by others in the field. 
Likewise, publication of a petitioner's research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 
Regarding his publication history, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he authored two 
scholarly articles. The Petitioner emphasizes that he has presented his research and clinical findings 
at national and international conferences. The record does not show that conference presentation is a 
privilege reserved for those at the very top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that his publication record of two articles in a twenty-year span is consistent with having a career of 
acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. 8 The Petitioner did not submit 
evidence showing the significance of the Petitioner's authorships or how his overall publications 
6 See also 6 US CIS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2 (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated to determine 
whether it was indicative ofbeing one of that small percentage who have risen to th every top of the field of endeavor and 
enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
7 Sec 6 USCJS Policy Manual,supra,atF.2 appendix (providing an example ofpeerreviewingfora scholarly journaias 
evidenced by a request from the journal to the alien to do the review, accompanied by proof that the alien actually 
completed the review). 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 (providing that publications should be evaluated to determine whether they 
were indicative oftheperson being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and 
enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. See H.R. Rep . No. 101-723 at 59, 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Without evidence that sets the 
Petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of publishing 
articles in prestigious journals, the Petitioner has not shown that his publications reflect being among 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's written work can 
be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have 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 over a period 
of time. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122 . The Petitioner did not submit a citation history for his published work . Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated a level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In addition, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated a level of interest in his work representing attention at a level 
consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(2) and 56 Fed . Reg. at 30704. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's service in a leading or critical role, the Petitioner rovided letters of 
recommendation from several colleagues that summarized his work with 
and I I as well as his involvement as a consultant with the pharmaceutical companies 
I I andl ] 9 While the Director acknowledged evidence demonstrating the Petitioner has 
performed a leading or critical role with severa l organizations, he found that the record lacked evidence 
of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and enjoying 
sustained national or international acclaim . We agree with the Director's determination that the letters 
do not contain sufficient information and explanation 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). 
For instance, in two letters, I I a neurologist and the Petitioner's co-author and 
colleague at the I provides that Petitioner's focus is on neurological patients 
who are disabled from medical conditions including Parkinson's disease, dystonia, multiple sclerosis, 
and stroke, and that he provided "medical treatment; local infiltrations, treatment with I I I lphysiotherapy, and occupational therapy." I a a physiatrist
1 
indicates that the 
Petitioner was her mentor durin her fellowshi at the _________ where she studied 
th She asserts that the Petitioner is a specialist in the 
technique of "localization of motor points" in the _______ 
I a physiatrist and senior lecturer in the department of physical medicine and 
rehabilitation at thel I indicates she has worked with the Petitioner 
on educational lectures and training workshops for doctors regardjng the neurological pathologies that 
merit the use o:tc=J 10 She provides that at I the Petitioner utilized 
9 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 We note that I letter has not been properly translated. Any document in a foreign language must be 
5 
in patients with neurological disorders, developed and provided courses and 
workshops onl _ onsistent with initiatives of the I _of Social Security. 
Although the above letters describe the focus of the Petitioner's clinical work and mention his 
modalities and technique, they do not establish that his role as head of the rehabilitation department 
at garnered him acclaim outside the hospital. 
Similarly, in his above-referenced lettersJ I indicates the Petitioner's role as medical director 
of includes participation in therapeutic studies and national congresses on the topic of the 
treatment ofl l but the record does not show how his role withinl I 
garnered him acclaim outside of that institution. In sum, while the Petitioner's reference letters 
indicated his leading or critical role withl landl I they did not show 
how those roles resulted in widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew significant attention from 
the greater field, or that the overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
In addition, the record contains letters from several pharmaceutical companies describing the 
Petitioner's role as a consultant. I l Business Unit Manager a indicat t the 
conducting workshops o at I for patients and hospital staff. 
Petitioner has motivated many of his colleagues to learn more about the correct use o b 
I I of states that the Petitioner participated in several of the company's 
regional meetings as a speaker and consultant in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 
I I of indicates that the Petitioner is responsible for the company'sl I 
product development department. Although the record shows that the Petitioner has been a consultant 
on the use o in neurorehabilitation for the laboratories I II I andl the letters 
from rep re sen tatives of those pharmaceutical companies do not address how the Petitioner 's consultant 
positions were leading or critical to these organizations as a whole or have resulted in his being 
recognized as among the small percentage of physiatrists in his field who have achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim as evidenced through extensive documentation. Further, although 
the Petitioner has been an assistant professor of medical residents at the I I I and a physiatrist at I the record does not contain evidence 
documenting his professional career with either of those organizations and that it has garnered him 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Apart from the recommendation letters the record does not contain other independent evidence, such 
as news articles or other relevant materials, demonstrating that the field of physiatry has widely 
recognized the Petitioner's roles with his employers in a manner that evidences a "career of acclaimed 
work ." The Petitioner's talents and his successes to date have garnered him increasing leadership 
responsibilities as evidenced by his current role with I I and I I 
However, the evidence does not show that his roles at these organizations are at a level that places him 
among "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R . § 103.2(b )(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate , and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English . Id. Here , the translation does not contain a certification from the translator. Accordingly , this translation 
does not comply with therequirements of8 C.F.R . § 103 .2(b )(3) and has diminished probative value. 
6 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner has satisfied, we have considered additional documentation 
in the record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. For 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence 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. 
With res ect to his recei t of awards, the record reflects that in 2004 the Petitioner's a er' 
was awarded a prize at the held by the Faculty of 
I a physiatrist and the Petitioner's co-author on that paper, confirms that the 
Petitioner received the award during his medical residency. The submitted evidence indicates that the 
competition was restricted to the medical institute's resident physicians, and it does not reflect that it 
is a national or internationally recognized award in the field as a whole or that the Petitioner garnered 
recognition for this award that extended beyond the institute. Further, the Petitioner did not establish 
that his 2004 receipt of a single award reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field, placing him 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 
59 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record, therefore, has not shown the Petitioner's receipt of the 
award established or contributed to his sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
Regarding the Petitioner's membershi in associations in the field on a eal the Petitioner hi hlighted 
his membership in the since 
2005 and emphasized his service between 2011 and 2015 as a member of the board of directors of the 
Metropolitan Chapter of the organization in the position of secretary. He asserts thatthe Director erred 
in determining that this scientific society does not qualify as an association that requires its members 
to have outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). We agree that the evidence does not establish that I requires its 
members to have outstanding achievements. 
The Petitioner provided two letters froml I board memberl I 
confirming that the Petitioner became an Active Member ot1 I in 2005 and served as a member 
of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Chapter of the organization in the osition of secretary 
between 2011 and 2015. The Petitioner also submitted two letters fro a physiatrist 
and past president of I who states that the Petitioner became a member of based upon 
his having "presented scientific works as a first step in his admission" and asserts that the Petitioner's 
membership was "granted by the society to him as an outstanding doctor," although these requirements 
are not stated elsewhere in the submitted materials and no explanation was provided regarding how 
these factors are weighed. 11 The Petitioner submitted the 20081 I bylaws that indicate the 
organization has four categories of members: Founding Members, Honorary Members, Active 
Members, and Associate Members. The requirements for "Active" membership include attaining the 
medical specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation, completing at least three years of approved 
11 We note that the record also contains recommendation letters from past president of I.I land 
pa st vice-president o _____ but these letters do not mention either the Petitioner's membership 
in the society orth membership requirements. 
7 
post-graduate training in physical medicine and rehabilitation, and having "recognized teaching or 
assistance activity." Even if we determined that those educational and work experience requirements 
can be deemed an "outstanding achievement," the Petitioner has not demonstrated how membership 
in the organization, or on the board of directors of its Metropolitan Chapter, reflects or results in 
national or international acclaim or is indicative of his placement among the small percentage of 
scientific researchers who have risen to the top of the field. 
As it relates to media coverage, as noted, the documentation submitted indicates the Petitioner was 
interviewed regarding topics inl for thel !network television 
programs in 2012 and l'in2014,andfortheradioprogramj I 
in 2014. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such minimal press coverage, 
without any media reporting pertaining to him since 2014, is consistent with the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203 (b )( 1 )(A) of 
the Act. The Petitioner did not show how this overall media coverage is indicative of a level of success 
consistent with being among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media 
reporting of approximately three interviews in a 20-year span reflects a career of acclaimed work in 
the field or meets a very high standard to present more extensive documentation than that required for 
lesser classifications. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30703, 30704 (July 5, 
1991 ). 
Finally, although the record reflects the Petitioner's income as a physician between August 2017 to 
July 2018, the record does not establish that he commands earnings commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203 (b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show 
that his wages are tantamount to 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). For example, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how his salary compared to others at the very top of his field, or that he received notoriety or attention 
based on his earnings separating himself from others in the field or placing him in the upper echelon. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not document his earnings beyond the period from August 201 7 to July 
2018, showing a consistent history and recognition from the field of his extraordinary ability. See 56 
Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, 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. Even major league level athletes 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. 1994 ). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished 
to qualify for the classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
See section 203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The petition is denied. 
9