dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-R-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 21,2015 
PETITION: FORM I -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) § 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Dir~ctor, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before ·us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or meeting at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for 
the classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner has not documented a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or provided evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of 
endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3). 
II. RELEVENT LAW AND REGULATIONS 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
Matter of R-R-G-
(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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.P.R .. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the Petitioner does not submit this documentation, then 
she must provide sufficient qualifying items that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and. then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered 
in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our properapplication of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
In the initial cover letter, the Petitioner addressed this criterion in conjunction with the leading or 
critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), but did not explain how any of her roles involved 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the Petitioner 
addresses or for which the Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-G-. 
judging the work of others. The Petitioner provided letters from experts in her ·field. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion in the RFE and final decision. 
We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 
2012); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). For the reasons outlined below, a review ofthe record of proceeding does not reflect that 
the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that she meets the plain 
language of this criterion and the Director's favorable determination on this issue is hereby 
withdrawn. 
This criterion requires not only that the Petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
Petitioner is able to produce evidence that she actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Dr. an interventional cardiologist and senior scientist at the 
in Israel, affirmed that he worked with 
the Petitioner at _ He asserted that she "analyzed and 
reviewed" journal articles for journal club meetings attended by her local colleagues and that she 
served on committees for which she had "heightened responsibilities." 
Dr. did not suggest that the Petitioner reviewed manuscripts as a peer-reviewer for a journal, 
and the record does not contain any letters from journals confirming such service. Dr. also 
did not sufficiently explain how presenting an analysis and review of articles at a journal club 
meeting involves participation as "a judge" of the work of others. Finally, Dr. did not detail 
any judging responsibilities as a committee member. As the Petitioner has not provided sufficient 
documentation that she meets the plain language requirements of this criterion, we hereby withdraw 
the Director's favorable determination under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The evidence must establish that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field 
as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
Contributions of major significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
the field. See 8 C.F.R, § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. 
The Petitioner initially indicated that she has performed research that is regarded as very important 
and significant among her peers, and that it is "very difficult to objectively document research 
acumen and abilities .... " She also requested U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
"take into consideration the opinion of [her] peers that she is regarded as being uniquely skilled as a 
physician and a research scientist" and provided published articles and presentations. After the 
Director requested additional evidence, the Petitioner offered documentation that she asserted 
3 
(b)(6)
------------------------------------------
Matter of R-R-G-
supports the information in the expert letters. The Director discussed the specific information within 
the expert letters, and determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that her record of 92 citations of her work supports her eligibility 
under this criterion. This number is from the Google Scholar results the Petitioner provided in 
response to the Director's. request for evidence (RFE), which are dated June 7, 2012, nearly 11 
months after the Petitioner filed the petition. More relevant to the Petitioner's eligibility are her 
citations as of the date of filing. 8 C.F .R. § 1 03 .2(b )(1 ), (12); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comrn'r 1971). The Petitioner had garnered 65 citations at the time she filed the 
petition. Moreover, both citation numbers are the sum spread across at least eight published works 
with the most frequently cited article receiving 21 cites. The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained how a scholarly article receiving 21 citations or several articles receiving 65 citations 
exhibits her impact within the field in a manner consistent with this criterion's requirements. For 
example, she did not provide the citation rates of other recognized contributions of major 
significance for comparison purposes. Nor has the Petitioner shown that a notable number of the 
citing authors placed unusual reliance on her work. Specifically, the example citations in the record 
cite the Petitioner's study as one of dozens of other studies and do not single out the Petitioner's 
work as significantly notable among other research in the field. 
Within the initial filing, the Petitioner discussed the media coverage of her work stating: "Please also 
find articles and various publication [sic] regarding the significance of the clinical procedures in 
which [the Petitioner] expertise. Please note the gravity ofsome of the heart diseases and conditions 
outlined in these publications, and that many of these procedures are truly life saving." In response 
to the RFE, the Petitioner did not specifically mention media attention. On appeal, she indicates that 
the Director failed to consider articles and releases from sources such as 
and 
and local articles that reference one of her articles. 
The study on heart disease prevention m 
firefighters has garnered some attention. Regarding the article titled " 
discussed Dr. 
Dr. 
' appearing in the online version of _ it 
and the sponsored study that the Petitioner worked on with 
but it did not mention the Petitioner's association with the study. Similarly," 
" in did not mention the Petitioner 
by nam~. While the Petitioner is credited with ~oauthoring scholarly work that is referenced in the 
study article, she is listed in the eighth position as one of 13 named coauthors. The title of 
the article is, ' 
"in the The 
Petitioner did not offer a letter from Dr. describing her level of involvement on the 
published work. Although Dr. , Medical Director at 
referenced the Petitioner being associated with the study mentioned above, she too did not 
specify how much of the credit for the study is owed to the Petitioner. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-G-
The Petitioner identified a reference to one of her presentations titled, ' _ 
_ " under the Related Links portion following the 
article. However, this presentation was not mentioned within the article referencing Dr. 
above, and the Petitioner has not explained how a link to her work without any discussion 
shows the importance of her work in the field. In reference to the website 
mentioning the funded study, the online article does not mention the 
Petitioner. Again, while we acknowledge that the Petitioner is one of the 13 authors, the first author, 
designated as the one to whom correspondence should be addressed, Dr. , has not confirmed 
the nature of the Petitioner's role on the overall funded project that has garnered attention. 
The Director noted that the letters do not identify contributions of major significance in the field and 
the Petitioner does not specifically address this concern on appeal. The record contains email 
correspondence from Dr. an interventional cardiologist at the 
in Oklahoma. Dr. explained that one of the Petitioner's clinical studies confirmed 
results originally obtained in France, allowing a paradigm shift in the United States that had already 
occurred in France. Dr. did not explain how confirming results obtained in France is an 
original contribution of major significance in the field as a whole. The remaining letters spoke 
favorably of the Petitioner's skills and abilities as a specialist, but they did not explain how the 
Petitioner's contributions in the field have been of major significance. Rather, they relied on the 
acceptance of the Petitioner's work for publication or presentation as the basis for their conclusion 
that the results were of major significance. Mote probative, however, is the response in the field 
after publication. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not sufficiently documented that her 
citation record is indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).2 The opinions of experts in the 
field are not without weight and have been considered above .. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive confirmation of eligibility; USCIS may, as 
this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
foreign national's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS 
may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165 (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190); see also Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters 
2 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [a 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-R-G-
from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the 
field). We have considered all the reference letters, including those not specifically mentioned. 
They did not sufficiently explain how the Petitioner has made contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Director determined the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The Petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including the article titled, " 
." in 
to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner asserted eligibility under this criterion relying on 
her conference presentations as comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). On appeal, 
the Petitioner no longer 
relies on meeting this criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has abandoned this 
criterion. Sepulveda v. US. Att 'y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying material under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director analyzed the evidence included for this criterion and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish her eligibility. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional discussion. Therefore, the Petitioner has abandoned this 
criterion. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not submitted qualifying material under this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, which satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
6 
Matter of R-R-G-
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor .. 
Had the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers the entire record in the context of whether or no~ the Petitioner has demonstrated: ( 1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one ofthatsmall percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the foreign national "has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the 
Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of presenting items that meet the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate 
supports a finding that the Petitioner has not shown the level of expertise required for the 
· classification sought. 3 
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, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofR-'R-G-, ID# 14866 (AAO Dec. 21, 2015) 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 3 81 F .3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).