dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-P-0-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 5, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a medical director and spinal surgeon, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief: stating that he 
meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
(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-
(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 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-0-
(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.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 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationall y 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 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria , however , does not, in and of itself , establish eligibility for this 
classification . See Kazarian v. USC IS, 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); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011), q{('d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawath e, 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCJS) 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"). Accordingly , where a 
petitioner submits qualif ying evidence under at least three criteria , we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
Il. ANALYSIS 
, The Petitioner is currently the medical director at the and at the 
As the Petitioner 
has not established that he has received a major , internationally recogniz
ed award , he must satisfy at 
least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In den ying the 
Petition , the Director found that that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 
C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the scholarly articles cri~erion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal , the 
Petitioner maintains that he also meets the membership criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) , the 
original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the high salary criterion under 8 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-0-
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class(jication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner expresses on appeal that his memberships with the 
and the 
eligible for this criterion. Regarding the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
render him 
medical director at who indicated that is "a very prestigious 
society, recognized worldwide." In addition, orthopedic surgeon at 
stated that "[ o ]nly extremely qualified and recognized Spine Surgeons, with strong 
academic and professional background [sic] can become members of and "the applicant 
requires peer sponsorship by at least two existing members." The record also contains 
bylaws reflecting various membership categories, including active membership that requires a 
medical degree, doctor of philosophy degree, or substantial contributions to and the field, and 
good ethical standing. 
Although indicates that is prestigiOus and internationally recognized, the 
reputation of an association is not a determining factor for eligibility for this criterion; rather a 
petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition 
for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, 
or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Finally, a petitioner's membership needs to be judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
A review of bylaws do not support claim that an applicant must be 
sponsored by two existing members. Regardless, the Petitioner has not established that 
requires outstanding achievements as a condition for membership .. Furthermore, the bylaws indicate 
that membership is reviewed by the membership committee and, if approved, forwarded to the board 
of directors. The Petitioner has not shown that the membership committee and board of directors are 
comprised of recognized national or international experts, as required by this regulatory criterion. 
1 Although he previously claimed eligibility for the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published 
material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner does not contest the decision of the Director, offer further arguments, or submit 
additional evidence for these criteria on appeal, nor does the record support a finding that he meets them. Accordingly, 
we will not address these criteria in this decision. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-0-
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that his membership with 
criterion. 
meets this 
Regarding the Petitioner states on appeal that 
membership requirements "include holding a 
specialist degree and postgraduate degree, academic publications, and peer review." The record 
contains a registration application listing required documentation, such as medical degrees, 
authorship of journal articles, and reference letters. As discussed above, these requirements do not 
rise to the level of outstanding achievements. Moreover, the application indicates that the 
application and supporting documentation will be reviewed by the credential committee, who will 
then inform the national board. Although the Petitioner provided screenshots regarding the 
background and history of they do not show that recognized national or internatiopal 
experts make up the credential committee and national board. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
shown that his membership with meets this criterion. 
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 alliedfield of specffication for which classffication is sought. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion based on his thesis advisor role for 
and his faculty advisor role for The record 
contains a letter from and 
who indicated that the Petitioner served as an advisor to thesis. In addition, 
the Petitioner presented a letter from who stated that he interned under the 
Petitioner at and 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
documentation mentioned above indicates that the Petitioner served as a thesis and faculty advisor. 
The Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate that he served as a judge consistent with the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. Not every instance of reviewing the work of others as part of 
one's job duties falls under this criterion. Therefore~ we withdraw the Director's finding regarding 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientlflc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o.fmajor signfficance in the.field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he "presented detailed, credible and voluminous evidence of 
his contributions." A review of the record of proceedings reflects that the Petitioner initially claimed 
eligibility based on his speakership role at 24 conferences, symposia, and societal conferences, such 
as the 
and 
The Petitioner, however, has not established that his conference presentations influenced 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-0-
his field in a significant manner. Participation in conferences may demonstrate that his findings 
were shared with others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on their selection 
for presentation. The record, however, does not demonstrate thaNhe Petitioner's presentations, for 
example, are frequently cited by other researchers or have otherwise impacted the field. Although 
the Petitioner received a first place award for his paper presented at the 
the record does not include evidence 
reflecting that his paper received recognition beyond the conference proceeding. Publications and 
presentations 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) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 
1115. In 2010, the 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. 
In response to the director's RFE, the Petitioner offered recommendation letters from 
orthopedic surgeon at and 
principal engineer at stated that the Petitioner published a paper entitled 
which "became an instant must have for orthopedic surgeons 
treating cancer patients in Venezuela." however, does not elaborate or give examples 
on how the manual has impacted or influenced the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not provide 
supporting documentary evidence showing that the manual is considered an original contribution of 
major significance by the field. 
In addition, praised the Petitioner for his collaboration on a clinical study but did not 
show that his contributions to the clinical study impacted the field beyond having the findings 
presented at a conference and published in a journal. Neither nor the Petitioner provided 
examples of researchers relying significantly on his findings or extensively citing to his work, as 
opposed to merely referencing his work as background. The lack of specific information contained 
in the letter does not show the Petitioner's research and findings .are viewed as an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, afl'd in part 596 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. The letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), q[('d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, * 1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
showing that he has made original contrib~tions of major significance in the field. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-P-0-
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications, such as 
ilie ~d 
Thus, the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and the 
record supports that finding. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner states on appeal that he presented evidence that his salary is almost five times higher 
than the average salary paid to other doctors in Venezueht. The record indicates that the Petitioner 
presented partial translations of his income tax returns from 2012-2014. and a screenshot from 
showing the base salaries of physicians in Venezuela depending on education, 
experience, and location. The uncertified translations do not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3)_2 As the Petitioner did not submit full, English language translations, we cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports his claims. 
Notwithstanding, the partial translations ref1ect that the Petitioner earned Venezuelan Bolivare 
(VEF) 1,134,095 in 2014. According to the article, the highest base salary for physicians in 2015 
wasVEF 25,150/per month or VEF 301,800 per year. The record contains a letter from 
general coordinator of academic council for who 
stated that the Petitioner is the "Medical Director" for In addition, 
according to his curriculum vitae, the Petitioner also serves as the "Medical Director" for 
It appears that the income reported on his tax documentation was based on his position as a medical 
director for two institutions. Rather than presenting evidence comparing his salary to other medical 
directors, the Petitioner provided evidence of base salaries of physicians. The Petitioner ha.? not 
shown that he commands a high salary in relation to other medical directors. See Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson 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). 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing how much salary he earned in each 
position he served. In the present case, the evidence the Petitioner submits does not establish that he 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that any foreign language document must be submitted with a full English language 
translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
6 
Matter of A-P-0-
has received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others 
in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record only satisfies one of the regulatory criteria. As a result, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "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), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination -referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. · 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-P-0-, ID# 124460 (AAO Jan. 5, 2017) 
7 
l