dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-S-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
AdministratiYe Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 1 L 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physician, 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. 
§ 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. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief contending that he satisfies 
at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 \vill substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage \vho 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 that 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, \Ve 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. USCL'!, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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); RUal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. 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 ofChawalhe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a staff physician at the in Mississippi. Because he has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the following criteria: memberships under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) , original contributions 
under § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a tinding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the award s cntenon under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(i) , he does not continue to do so on appeal, nor does the record support a finding that he meets it. 
Accordingly , we will not further address this criterion in our decision . 
2 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classffication is 
sought. which require outstanding achievements oltheir members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner must establish that he is 
a member of associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. The Petitioner contends that his "Degree of Fellow" by 
the is an elevated class of membership in that 
organization, and therefore, that it meets this criterion. 2 However , according to Article IV of 
bylaws submitted by the Petitioner , "[a] Fellow shall not be considered a separate 
membership classification but shall be considered an earned degree.'' As such, bylaws do 
not support the Petitioner's assertion. 
Notwithstanding the above , the Petitioner claims that he received the fellow degree based on his 
publications on hyperhomocysteinemia and his review of work of others. The record contains 
screenshots from website reflecting that ' 
and In addition, the 
Petitioner provided his fellowship application reflecting the assignment of points based on answers 
to questions relating to lifelong learning, practice or quality improvement , volunteer teaching, public 
service, publishing and research, and specialty service. Further, the Petitioner submitted a letter 
from board chair and immediate past president, who stated that 
established the fellow "to recognize members who have distinguished themselves among their 
colleagues, and in their communities, by their service to family medicine, the advancement of 
healthcare to the American people and professional development through medical education.'' 3 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that the "Degree of Fellow" requires outstanding 
achievements. Specifically, as indicated above, the fellowships are open to any 
members who accrue at least 100 points on the application and pay the fee. As it pertains to the 
application, points are assigned for various criteria , such as receiving and continuing education and 
training, working in the field of family medicine , volunteering and mentoring , and publishing 
articles. The Petitioner has not established that these standards represent outstanding achievements. 
Instead, they reflect education, training, and experience from individuals practicing in the family 
medicine field. Although offers some individuals a credential to distinguish themselves from 
other members who do not possess such professional achievements, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the "Degree of Fellow" requires accomplishments rising to the level of "outstanding 
achievements" consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 The Petitioner does not indicate , nor does the record reflect, that regular or active membership with 
regulatory requirements of this criterion. 
3 The Petitioner also offered a similar letter from member relations specialist. 
3 
satisfies the 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
Further, this regulatory criterion requires the outstanding achievements to be judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. According to of 
bylaws, 
Therefore, 
the record does not indicate recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding 
achievements of potential fellows; rather, prospective candidates qualify for the fellowship 
once they have six years of membership, score at least 100 on the application, and pay the 
required fee. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that his "Degree of Fellow'· meets 
this criterion. 
The Petitioner also claims that his certification by the 
satisfies this criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner contends that "[t]he very fact that the 
examination tests the competence of the physician attests to the outstanding achievements, and may 
not be ignored as such or slighted." The record contains a letter from verification 
coordinator and candidate assistant for who verified the Petitioner's certification and 
generally indicated that certification is based on completing family medicine requirements and 
examinations. In addition, the record contains screenshots from \vebsite reflecting that 
certification requires successfully passing 
an examination, completing training, maintaining a license 
to practice medicine, finishing family medicine certification points, and paying the examination fee. 
Although candidates must meet certain standards in order to be certified by the they do not 
rise to the level of "outstanding achievements" consistent with this regulatory criterion. Moreover, 
the Petitioner did not establish that certification is judged by recognized national or 
international experts. Similar to the fellow, candidates become certified once all 
requirements have been satisfied. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's H'ork in the fieldfor ·which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date. and author ofthe material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record includes provides two articles, posted on the websites http: and 
http:. relating to the Petitioner's research on memory loss from micro strokes. 
However, the Petitioner did not establish that these websites constitute major media. Regarding 
http:/ the Petitioner offers a screenshot from its website reflecting that it launched 
in 201 3 to focus on India and that it "also reaches a large section of readers in North 
America, the United Kingdom and Europe." As it relates to http:/ the Petitioner 
presents a screenshot from its \Vebsite indicating that it "is one of the world-class news portal[ s] that 
runs in Hindi language.'' The Petitioner, however, did not provide corroborating evidence, such as 
viewership statistics, to demonstrate that the websites reach a "large audience'' or are "world-class.'' 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) need not rely on the self-promotional material 
of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 
4 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the 
magazine's status is not reliant evidence of major media). Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a panel. as ajudge (?f the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield qf.specification.for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record reflects that he reviewed 
manuscripts and articles for professional publications, such as the 
As such, we agree with the Director's conclusion for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly. artistic. athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign(ficance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his three published articles relating to the amino acid homocysteine 
demonstrate "the major influence and impact of [his] findings across the entire field of numerous 
medical disciplines." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must 
establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or intluenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner provided citation data regarding his three articles from 
citations; 
citations; and 
citations. The Petitioner 
also submits copies of over 70 articles that cited to his articles. The articles, however, do not show 
that his work was singled out as particularly important or indicative of major significance. Rather. 
the papers credit the Petitioner for his research, along with all of the papers that are cited, but do not 
demonstrate that his work has been considered to hold major significance. 
For instance, in the introduction to the article ' 
the authors 
state that "experimental studies demonstrated that [hyperhomocysteinemia] causes a pathologic 
hypertrophy, the reformation of both ventricles and is associated to left ventricle diastolic 
dysfunction," citing to the Petitioner's work as one of those studies. The articles acknowledge the 
Petitioner's research findings but do not indicate that his published works are original contributions 
of major significance beyond briefly summarizing his research findings. Publications are not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), qffd in part , 596 F.Jd 1115. In 2010, the 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding 
relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. The Petitioner has not shown that the submitted citations 
establish his publications rise to a level of contributions of major significance consistent with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that discussed his studies but did not show 
that his research or publications constituted original contributions of major significance. 4 For 
example, dean and professor at the 
stated that the Petitioner's work is "highly novel and original." however, did not 
establish whether the field recognizes the Petitioner's work as being majorly significant. Likewise, 
vice president and director of the 
indicated that he and the Petitioner were "the first to demonstrate that homocysteine indeed injures 
heart muscles and the endothelial lining of the chambers," and without the Petitioner's dedication his 
manuscripts would have never been published. Again, did not show how the 
Petitioner's research or subsequent publications significantly impacted the field. Further, 
member of the board of directors for the summarized the Petitioner's 
research findings and claimed that the Petitioner "has made important contributions to the 
cardiovascular literature" without demonstrating how his work has vastly influenced the field. 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). 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner· s status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already int1uenced the field are insut1icient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd inpart596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field'' were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field. in prof'essional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. As discussed above, the 
Petitioner authored scholarly articles that were published m professional journals such as the 
and Accordingly, 
the Petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
4 While we discuss a sampling of the recommendation letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner argues that he performed in a critical role as a physician for in 
Mississippi. 5 He references a letter from DO, physician and founder 
of the who stated that the Petitioner "has served the Clinic well as a primary care 
physician for over two years, contributing critically to the daily successes and operations of the 
Clinic despite receiving a salary below that of larger clinics and hospitals in the area." In addition, 
the record includes a letter from clinic coordinator for 
who indicated that his "critical contributions to the smooth operation at the Clinic is the best 
testimony of [the Petitioner's] role in the success of the to care for individuals where 
other US doctors have turned their faces away." 
In general, a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. The Petitioner claims that being "the only MD in the clinic is the 
biggest evidence of how my role has impacted the outcomes of the clinic in its mission to serve the 
people of Mississippi." While the record indicates that possesses a degree as a doctor 
of osteopathy rather than a doctor of medicine, the Petitioner did not otherwise offer evidence to 
support his assertion that he is the only physician possessing an MD degree at the clinic.6 
Regardless, he did not sufficiently explain how possession of this degree is reflective of the critical 
nature of his role for the clinic. 
Further, although the letters repeatedly use the term "critical," they do not show how the Petitioner 
has contributed to the success or reputation of the clinic. Repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), a.ff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates. Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate 
how he has impacted the overall status or success of the clinic. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires a petitioner to establish that his 
role is for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a screenshot for a 2012 article posted on an unidentified website, which quotes 
relating to the physician shortages and mentions as not being 
sufficiently staffed to handle the 
patients. In addition, the record includes several articles profiling 
and praising her work treating disadvantaged patients. However, these at1icles do not 
demonstrate that the as an establishment, enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
5 
The Petitioner does not claim in his brief that he performed a "leading" role for the nor does the record 
demonstrate it. 
6 
While the record contains a letter from officer manager for who stated that the Petitioner 
"personally sees 29 percent of the patients seen in this clinic," she did not indicate who handles the other 71 percent. 
.
Matter of N-S-S-
Finally, the Petitioner claims that his "roles as a physician should also be considered critical at the 
in Mississippi for nearly four years." In addition, the Petitioner 
indicates that he will provide statistics regarding obesity and letters from employers and prominent 
physicians in Mississippi. The record , however , does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted such 
evidence. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he performed in a critical role for 
nor did he demonstrate that the hospital enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he meets 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 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless , we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of N-S-S- , 10# 696653 (AAO Dec. II, 20 17) 
8