dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23372976 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 25, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a physician, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's , Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award. If that petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then he or she must provide 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 physician and contends he has a track record of success and sustained national and 
international acclaim. The Petitioner further stated he is an accomplished gastroenterologist who assumed 
key positions within distinguished medical and heath institutions. Because the Petitioner has not 
indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have 
satisfied nine of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), documentation of the individual's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
• (ii), membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members 
• (iii), published material about the individual in professional or major media 
• (iv), participation as a judge of the work of others in the same of allied field 
• (v), alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field 
• ( vi), evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media 
• (vii), display of her work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
• (viii), evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
• (ix), high remuneration for services 
The Director concluded the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pertaining to judging the work of others 
and authorship of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner withdraws the criteria of membership 
and published material about the individual but asserts that his evidence satisfies the applicable legal 
requirements to satisfy the other claimed criteria. 
We will not disturb the Director's determinations regarding the Petitioner's judging the works of 
others and authorship of scholarly articles. But for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the other claimed criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
2 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has received lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. When determining 
whether an individual has received lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor, we consider factors such as: the criteria used to grant the awards 
or prizes; the national or international significance of the awards or prizes in the field; and the number 
of awardees or prize recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that any of the awards qualify as 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. We agree with 
that determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he was recognized by appearing on the 2008 Saude Analise's list 
of the He provided a printout of the magazine 
article awarding him the title, and explained the candidates are selected by other doctors who have the 
scientific knowledge necessary to judge their colleagues in the industry. The Petitioner also provided 
an article, dated 2013, from SEMPR that stated the Yearbook Analise Saude 2013 had 
published a list of 2,000 doctors who had been chosen as "most admired" in their specialties by their 
medical colleagues. However, the record does not fully explain, or present evidence, regarding the 
selection processes. Nor does it contain sufficient information or supporting evidence about the 
competition that would support the Petitioner's claim that these awards should be considered a national 
or international award for excellence in the field of gastroenterology. Absent, for example, 
information regarding the number of competitors in the Petitioner's category, or evidence of how the 
medical colleagues select their top doctors, or evidence of the level of recognition associated with this 
award, we cannot find that the Petitioner has satisfied each element of the criterion. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than having major significance to 
a project or to an organization. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022)(citing 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013)). The regulatory phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 
(2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute is to be given effect and none should 
needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no 
consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have already been realized rather than 
being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major significance connotes that the 
Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying 
all these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that his published work, funded research, and peer reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals show the significance of his contributions to his field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits articles he authored and a citation record that indicated his work was cited 50 times. 
3 
The Petitioner contends his articles were published in leading journals. Although we acknowledge 
the achievement of publishing articles in journals, what is lacking is the Petitioner's account of how 
that equates to this criterion's requirements. While being published in prestigious journals certainly 
suggests the Petitioner's research is valuable, it does not necessarily mean that his valued research has 
significantly contributed to the field as a whole. Publications alone are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of major significance. The Petitioner did not establish 
that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal alone demonstrates a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
His arguments regarding the collective or total number of citations to his published work also fails to 
meet this criterion's requirements. The Petitioner focuses on his total number of citations, but not on 
any particular single article while also comparing that recognition to other leading articles in his field. 
In general, the comparison of a Petitioner's cumulative citations to those of others in the field in an 
attempt to draw a conclusion of their comparative impact in the field, is often more appropriate within 
a final merits determination after they have satisfied at least three regulatory criteria. Such a 
comparison may assist in determining whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that they are among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 
We view a comparison of citations to individual scientific articles to be more relevant for this criterion 
to establish the overall field's general view of a contribution of major significance. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.2 (Appendices); see also 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). For example, he did not provide the citation rates of other 
recognized contributions of major significance within the field for comparison purposes. Nor has the 
Petitioner shown that a notable number of the citing authors placed unusual reliance on his work. The 
Petitioner also did not establish what an average or high citation rate is within his specialized field. 
Even considering the Petitioner's appellate claims under this criterion, we still conclude he has not 
shown that his work has resulted in a marked impact within the field. In the end, the Petitioner has 
not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The plain language of this criterion limits it to artistic exhibitions and showcases rather than scientific 
ones. The Petitioner claimed his evidence qualified as comparable evidence for consideration. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily 
apply to a petitioner's occupation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.2 (Appendices). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that doctors do not have their work displayed in artistic exhibitions 
or showcases because it does not apply to that line of work. Instead, the Petitioner states that 
comparable evidence for this criterion is published work presented and exhibited in scientific 
meetings, medical symposiums and conventions. With regard to display of the person's work, the 
evidence must demonstrate that the venues were "artistic" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
4 
For instance, a scientific researcher who displays his work at a conference, symposium, workshop, or 
meeting would not meet the requirements of this criterion. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 
1122 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that self-publishing a textbook, lecturing at a community college, and 
presenting at conferences were not displays at artistic exhibitions or showcases consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language). Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this 
criterion, including through the submission of comparable evidence. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role has been for an organization or 
establishment ( or a division or department of an organization or establishment) having a distinguished 
reputation. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy 
and through the role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish 
if a role is or was, in fact, leading. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
F.2(B)(2)(Appendices). If a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner has contributed 
in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
activities. It is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather the petitioner's performance in the role 
that determines whether the role is or was critical. In addition, this criterion requires that the 
organization or establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. USCIS policy 
reflects that organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are "marked by 
eminence, distinction, or excellence." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.2. (citing to 
the definition of distinguished, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam­
webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these 
elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Letters from employers, attesting to an employee's role in the organization, must contain detailed and 
probative information that specifically addresses how the person's role for the organization or 
establishment was leading or critical. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. The 
Petitioner's do not. 
The Petitioner stated that he currently holds a critical position at _______ in Florida as a 
research fellow. He further explained that is consistently ranked as one of the best hospitals in the 
United States. I !Manager and Research Program/MDT Coordinator, stated that a 
research fellow in colorectal surgery department is a critical position as they conduct clinical 
research, formal study meetings, administrative meetings, and a weekly formal course in clinical research 
methodology. She also explained how the Petitioner designed studies and wrote manuscripts and 
conducted important research that assisted in the continued advancement of the industry overall. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I lof the Digestive 
Disease Center and Chair of the Department of Colorectal Surgery. I I stated that Oinvited 
the Petitioner to relocate in the United States and collaborate and contribute further developing medical 
knowledge in his area of expertise. He further indicated the Petitioner has been a "highly active member 
of important research projects," and the information derived from these projects will provide0with 
data for future studies and help obtain further grants and awards. 
5 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends he plays a leading role atD as noted in the support letters. Although 
the two letters fromOconfirm the importance of the Petitioner's contributions as a research fellow, 
they do not establish that he performed a leading or critical role forOas a whole, such as by showing 
he influenced its overall reputation or status, or was responsible for the success of the organization. 
While the Petitioner worked on research projects to enhance program, and thereby supported its 
mission, he did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to show that his duties and 
responsibilities were critical to the greater organization. The two letters do not describe with sufficient 
detail how the Petitioner himself played a critical role in the successesDenjoyed. Although Mr. 
I lstated that the Petitioner's involvement in research projects contributed to new data and 
possibly more funding for future projects, he did not provide specific examples. Every employee 
fulfills some kind of role that benefits their employer in some way. Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that his work for was critical to the organization itself, rather than to the outcome of 
specific, limited tasks or projects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further contends that he played a critical role as co-founder of a medical practice 
in Brazil, the (IPC). The Petitioner submitted a letter from IPC's Technical 
Director confirming that from 1982 to 2018 the Petitioner was IPC' s founder and chief of staff, attending 
physician, gastrointestinal surgeon, and researcher. While it does appear as though the Petitioner played 
a leading role as founder and chief of staff at IPC, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence that 
IPC enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that INBRAP, the Brazilian Institute of Public Opinion and Research, 
awarded the practice I I in 2005 for the category of Ambulatory Care Services. According 
to a print-out from INBRAP's website, the award is given annually to "companies, entities and 
professionals that really make a difference .... " It also stated that the award is considered one of the most 
important "marketing" awards. Without further information, we cannot determine that a company with 
this award should be considered one with a distinguished reputation. 
In summary, the evidence provided does not sufficiently demonstrate the Petitioner performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of contributions 
without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rose to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof See F edin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. V. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. At 17. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that their salary or remuneration is high relative 
to the compensation paid to others working in the field in similar positions and geographic locations. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F(2) appendix (stating that it is the petitioner's burden 
6 
to provide geographical and position-appropriate evidence to establish that a salary is relatively high); 
see also Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 
712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering 
NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 
1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). The burden 
is on the petitioner to provide appropriate comparative evidence. Examples may include, but are not 
limited to, geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys. Persons working in different 
countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that country, 
rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would 
be considered high in the United States. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from the senior accountant in charge of his personal and corporate tax 
returns in Brazil. The letter stated thel I is solely owned by the 
Petitioner and the company was structured to register the income from the Petitioner's professional 
activities as a doctor. He explained the Petitioner has full control of the company and the company's 
profits are reported as regular income on the Petitioner's individual income tax forms. The Petitioner 
also provided copies of his 2010-2019 Brazilian personal income tax returns. The Petitioner did not 
provide a full translation of these documents but instead provided partial translations. Any document 
in a foreign language must be 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. 
Because the Petitioner did not submit properly certified English language translations, we cannot 
meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's 
claims. 
Nor did the Petitioner provide any documentation regarding the company to corroborate the claim that 
the Petitioner owns it. Without information of the company's ownership and without a full translation 
of his tax documents, it is impossible to determine if the Petitioner's full income arose from his work 
as a doctor. It is not clear if the Petitioner's income tax return shows the income he received as the 
owner, or as a doctor. Without sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's compensation as a physician, 
we are unable to compare the Petitioner's income with the submitted wage data. 
We find that the evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate that he has commanded a high 
salary in relation to others in his field. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that 
the Petitioner's evidence did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a determination on the 
7 
issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 1 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded that it does not support a 
conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification 
sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal//), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are 
"reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing 
Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing 
in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly 
accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. 
Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not 
qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his 
work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent 
with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 
59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that he 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
8