dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
L. 
>perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
petitioner, a physician, was working as a cardiology fellow. According to the terms of the contract, the 
position was a training position. The petitioner currently works as a physician at a clinic, but this 
position, as well as the other achievements documented on appeal, postdate the filing of the petition and 
cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualifj for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a personal statement in which he discusses the merits of the evidence 
submitted, which will be addressed below. In addition, he notes that he has spent time pursuing his 
adjustment application and presumes to advise U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on 
how to alleviate a shortage of physicians in the United States. As acknowledged by the petitioner, his 
pursuit of his adjustment application has no relevance to the petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Moreover, USCIS merely enforces the immigration laws established by 
Congress; we do not create the country's immigration classifications or allocate the number of visas per 
classification.' We note that Congress did create a classification to ameliorate local shortages of 
physicians in the United States, set forth at section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. The instant petition was 
not filed under that provision. The only issue before us is whether the petitioner has demonstrated the 
necessary national or international acclaim required for the classification sought. For the reasons 
discussed below, we uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not demonstrated the 
necessary acclaim. 
Before analyzing the law and evidence submitted, we note that the petitioner answered the question in 
Part 4, line 6 of the Form I- 140 petition in the affirmative as to whether any immigrant visa petition had 
1 When the petitioner filed the instant petition, he was already the beneficiary of an approved visa petition in 
a lesser classification for which the priority date has not yet become available. 
ever been filed in his behalf. However, instructions to Part 4 also require a petitioner to "provide the 
case number, office location, date of decision, and disposition of the decision on a separate sheet(s) of 
paper." The petitioner did not attach an explanation as required. USCIS records reveal that five prior 
immigrant petitions had, in fact, been filed in the alien's behalf as of the date the instant petition was 
filed. More specifically, the petitioner's repeated failure to provide all requested information on the 
Form I- 140 is as follows: 
Counsel prepared all of the above petitions. The petitioner signed each Form 1-140 at Part 8, certifjring 
under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." 
In addition, counsel signed each Form 1-140 at Part 9, declaring that the petition "is based on all 
information of which I have knowledge." 
While there is no prohibition regarding the number of extraordinary ability and national interest waiver 
petitions an alien may choose to file, neither the alien nor his attorney of record is permitted to 
deliberately conceal the existence of prior filings in response to the specific questions at Part 4 of an 
1-140 petition, or to decline to provide USCIS with specific requested information regarding all prior 
filings. The Form 1-140 petition "shall be executed and filed in accordance with the instructions on the 
form." 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(l). As counsel has represented the petitioner in all of his Form 1-140 
filings, it is unclear why counsel signed each petition to indicate that the incomplete forms were "based 
on all information of which I have knowledge." The existence of prior petitions and the information 
contained within those petitions may be material to a new adjudication. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(15) (withdrawal or denial of a petition due to abandonment shall not itself affect a new 
Form 
I- 140 
INA 5 203(b)(2) 
I- 140 
INA 5 203(b)(l)(A) 
I- 140 
INA 5 203(b)(2) 
I- 140 
INA tj 203(b)(2) 
I- 140 
INA 3 203(b)(l)(A) 
I- 140 
INA 5 203(b)(l)(A) 
We note that this petition was approved in a lesser classification than the one sought in the matter currently 
before us. 
Date of Filing 
0811 9/02 
0811 9/02 
09/29/03 
09120106 
09/22/06 
1211 9/07 
Receipt # 
EAC0226655033 
withdrawn 
EAC0226655 143 
denied 
EAC032665 1252 
denied 
SRC0627652428 
approved2 
LINO70085 1532 
withdrawn 
SRC0806550023 
denied 
Part 4, Question 6: Has any 
immigrant visa petition ever been 
filed by or on behalf of this person? 
"NO" 
L'N~" 
"Yes" 
Lacks required explanation 
"NO" 
"NO" 
"Yes" 
Lacks required explanation 
proceeding; however, the facts and circumstances surrounding the prior petition shall otherwise be 
material to the new petition). The AAO notes that willfully misleading, misinforming or deceiving any 
person concerning any material and relevant matter relating to a case may be a basis for disciplinary 
sanctions under 8 C.F.R. fj 1003.102(c). In addition, such actions may constitute frivolous behavior. 
See 8 C.F.R. fj 1003.102(j). The AAO must express its deep concern and strongly discourage this 
behavior. 
I. Law 
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 -- 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10ISt Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Id. ; 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the 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) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 7253 17 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the 
AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those 
concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
3 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at "3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if 
qualifying under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing 
Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de 
novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by 
using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO 
conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary criteria4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner "has received an impressive list of academic and 
professional honors, awards and distinctions." Counsel lists the following examples: scoring in the top 
99th percentile in the annual internal medicine examinations taken by all internists around the country, 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
selection for "leading roles at some of the country's finest medical institutions" and his publications 
and presentations. Counsel did not explain how any of these accomplishments constitute recognized 
national or international "prizes or awards" for excellence in the field of cardiology. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel requested that the director "take 
into consideration the fact that [the petitioner] has the rare honor of being board-certified in four areas, 
internal medicine. cardiovascular medicine. nuclear cardiolonv and echocardio~ra~hv." Counsel 
as it appears in the original.) 
The record contains evidence of the petitioner's board certifications and information about some of the 
certifications. The Board certifications appear to be based on examination scores. While these 
certifications are not required to practice cardiology, the record does not contain any evidence that 
board certification constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field of cardiology. On appeal, counsel asserts that in the last 30 years, there has not been a 
cardiologist in the town where the petitioner now resides that has all four board certifications. 
Regardless, the record does not contain any evidence that board certification issued upon successful 
completion of an examination is a "prize" or "award." Rather, it is far more comparable to a license. 
While a license that is not required for working in an occupation may be indicative of or consistent with 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered, see 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), 
that is the standard for aliens of exceptionally ability, a lesser classification set forth at section 
203(b)(2) of the Act. See also 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(2). We are not persuaded that board licensure 
constitutes a prize or award in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 24, 2009 letter from past president of the 
inviting the petitioner "to join me and other members of the 
American College of Cardiology to participate" in the Cardiovascular Health Delegation to Egypt. -- - 
(Emphasis added.) The letter further notes that participants "will apply for continuing medical 
education credits up to a maximum of 12.0 hours in Category I credit towards the AMA Physician's 
Recognition Award." First, this letter postdates the filing of the petition and, thus, cannot be 
considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless, the invitation appears to be for an educational 
opportunity that can be applied towards continuing medical education rather than a prize or award 
recognizing excellence in the field. The record contains no evidence that this invitation was not 
extended to a limited number of members of the American College of Cardiology. 
The director concluded that that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence of prizes or awards. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not explain how any of the evidence discussed above can be considered a 
prize or award. Moreover, as the petitioner has not demonstrated that this category of evidence is not 
"readily applicable" to the petitioner's field, we cannot accept "comparable" evidence pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). Regardless, evidence that expressly falls under an entirely separate criterion, 
Page 8 
such as published articles (8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi)) and memberships (8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii)), 
cannot be considered as "comparable" evidence under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i). To hold otherwise 
would render meaningless the requirement that a petitioner submit evidence under at least three 
separate categories of evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
2002 Intern of the Year Award in recognition of his outstanding qualities as a "physician in training" at 
that institution. In addition, a letter from the principal of PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and 
Research confirms that the petitioner was a student there in the 1990s and that his dissertation on 
convulsive disorders earned the petitioner a "Gold Medal" from an undisclosed source. Counsel does 
not assert that this evidence is qualifying under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the record contains no 
evidence that employer recognition for accomplishments as a trainee and what appears to be an 
academic award for the petitioner's dissertation in an unrelated area of medicine to cardiology (his 
claimed area of expertise) are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not submitted any qualifying 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's membership in both the Royal College of Physicians of 
Ireland and the Royal College of Physicians in London serves as qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) because the petitioner is only "one of five physicians worldwide to have been accepted 
for membership in both of these royal colleges." Counsel further asserts that membership is based on 
"rigorous examinations that only a small minority of physicians in either country pass." The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
, an attending physician specializing in infectious diseases at 
where the petitioner completed his residency and training fellowship, 
the Royal Colleges must complete years of training and "sit for one of the most difficult medical exams 
in the entire world." a U.S. physician, does not purport to be an expert on the Royal 
Colleges of Ireland and London. The Internet materials from the Royal College of Physicians assert 
that fellows are "senior members of the medical profession, usual hospital consultants or physicians 
working in university departments of medicine." The petitioner, however, is not a "fellow," but a 
"member." While the Internet materials submitted by the petitioner indicate that there are only 8,500 
fellows worldwide, total membership is more than 22,000 physicians. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, -President of Cardiac 
Services and Director of Echocardiography at Wilson Medical Center where the petitioner now works, 
asserts that he has "no doubt the Royal College is similar to Harvard or ~6kn Hopkins in their 
exceptional standards." He then rates the Royal College "even higher." concludes that the 
Ro a1 College is not a paid membership but a "traditional way of honoring highly skilled physicians." 
m , who practices medicine in the United States, does not explain his personal familiarity with 
the Royal College's membership requirements. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the exceptional 
standards of competitive universities such as Harvard or Johns Hopkins leads to a conclusion that 
credentials from those universities constitute "membership" in an association. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that he is a member of the American Society of 
Echocardiography and an "affiliate member" of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. The 
record contains no evidence of the membership requirements for either society, such as the official 
bylaws of the societies. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the Royal College or the societies of 
which the petitioner is a member require outstanding achievements of their members. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that membership in the Royal College requires more than payment of membership 
dues; rather, members must "fulfill the criteria and apply for the membership." The petitioner, 
however, does not provide evidence of what those "criteria" are. The petitioner further asserts that the 
societies of which he is a member require "credentials in the form of number of procedures and proof 
of competency." We are not persuaded that practicing in one's occupation and demonstrating 
"competency" are outstanding achievements. 
Royal College membership appears examination based. We are not persuaded that passing an 
examination, even a competitive examination, is an outstanding achievement. As noted above, the 
petitioner does not appear to have been admitted to the top tier of membership, fellowship. The record 
contains no evidence that the societies of which the petitioner is a member require outstanding 
achievements. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifjring evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Counsel did not initially assert that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner did submit an 
undated article in Express News Service reporting the petitioner's receipt of a "gold medal at the 
examination on leprosy conducted by the Coimbatore Urban Leprosy Eradication Scheme." The 
petitioner also submitted a letter from America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals advising that 
the petitioner's biography had been selected for inclusion in an upcoming edition. Finally, the record 
contains a copy of a page from ten best doctors. 
Specifically, the petitioner submitt octors to listen to 
Page 10 
their patients." The petitioner is named as a student from one ot classes. He is not 
named as one of New York's Ten Best Doctors and the listing is not "about" the petitioner. 
The director requested evidence about the publications in which the above material appeared and 
advised that citations of the petitioner's articles were not qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserts without 
explanation that citations are qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and that while no 
additional information about Best Doctors, New York is available, it is a "respected publication." The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 1 9 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated published material in professional or 
major trade journals or other major media. The petitioner does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
We concur with the director that articles that cite the petitioner's work are about the authors' own work 
or provide a general review of recent advances in the field. They cannot be credibly considered 
published material "about" the petitioner relating to his work. 
In addition, as stated above, the listing in Best Doctors, New York is "about" not the 
petitioner. Thus, it is not qualifling evidence under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence of the magazine's circulation and distribution or other evidence that 
would demonstrated that the magazine may be considered a professional or major trade journal or other 
major media. 
Finally, America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals appears to be a for-profit publisher of 
directories containing brief biographies for a large number of professionals, similar to a "vanity press." 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that this directory constitutes a professional or major trade journal 
or other major media. Regardless, the petitioner did not demonstrate that the directory actually 
published the petitioner's biography. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifiing evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 specfication for which class2Jication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that, at Long 1sland he (I) evaluated students, (2) 
served on a three-member "Harrison Review" panel for case presentation, (3) served on a Root Cause 
Analysis Committee investigating major catastrophic case events and (4) served on quality assurance 
and implementation committees. In addition, the petitioner completed a required evaluation of a 
continuing medical education teleconference. This evidence qualifies under the plain language of 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Page 11 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signlJicance in thejeld. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. . 
The record contains six articles authored by the petitioner, evidence of a seventh article, an abstract 
from a poster presentation at the World Congress on Lung Health in 2000 and a poster presentation 
purportedly from the American College of Physicians meeting in March 2006. Counsel initially 
asserted that the distinguished nature of the journals demonstrates that the petitioner's articles are 
contributions of major significance. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the 
authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence 
relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner 
also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
Initially, in reference to the World Congress on Lung Health, counsel asserted that the petitioner "is 
one of a small group of elite in his field who has been asked to present at the single most important 
international conference in the entire [field of] pulmonology." As stated above, the unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; 
Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The 
record does not resolve whether the poster presentations are peer reviewed and, assuming they are, 
how many poster presentations are accepted in relation to oral presentations, which would appear to 
reflect a more significant presentation level. 
We will not presume the impact of an article from the journal in which it appeared or the impact of a 
poster presentation from the conference where it was displayed. Rather, it is the petitioner's burden 
to demonstrate the impact of his individual articles and posters. In response to the director's request 
for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted the results of a search on www.scholar.~oo~le.com 
for the petitioner's name without quotes appearing anywhere in the article. Not all of the results 
relate to the petitioner. For example, one of the results relates to a physics article. Nevertheless, we 
acknowledge that these results reveal that one of the petitioner's articles, a case report on positional 
ventricular tachycardia from a fractured mediport catheter, had been cited 12 times as of April 30, 
2009, a date well after the date of filing. As a list of the citations was not provided, the record does 
not establish how many of these citations are self-citations by the petitioner or a coauthor or how 
many of these citations predate the filing of the petition on December 19,2007. 
We acknowledge a 2004 letter from , Global Renal Project 
Team, Abbott Laboratories. In this articipate in the Study 
for Evaluation of Early Kidney Disease. The record does not reflect that the invitation to participate 
is evidence of a past contribution of major significance. ~otabl~, indicates that he is 
looking for 250 centers that can enroll up to 10 patients per site over a two-week period. Thus, the 
invitation appears based on the size of the center where the petitioner was working rather than his 
past contributions of major significance. 
a consultant physician in spinal chord injury at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, 
affirms having worked with the petitioner in Aberdeen, Great Britain. 
 does not assert any 
expertise in cardiology. 
 asserts that while working in Great Britain, the petitioner compared 
the guidelines at the hospital where he worked with national guidelines and "explained how to 
manage the different types of pneumothorax" and published this work. does not assert that 
the petitioner authored new guidelines or that those guidelines were widely adopted in Great Britain 
or anywhere else. The record does not indicate that the petitioner's published work in this area has 
garnered any national or international attention or otherwise proved influential. 
-1 a full-time cardiologist at Long Island College Hospital, discusses the 
petitioner's research and clinical skills. Specifically, 
 concludes that as the petitioner's 
"research is translated into patient treatment protocols, it is [the petitioner] who will have the 
necessary expertise and skills to ensure that these protocols are designed and evaluated in ethical and 
rigorous clinical trials." does not identify any treatment protocols that have been widely 
adopted at the national or international level that have derived from the petitioner's research. 
next discusses the petitioner's clinical expertise. Specifically, asserts that 
the petitioner is one of the few cardiologists in the United States who can safely perform direct 
current cardioversion and has "superior" expertise in performing "other cutting-edge procedures, 
such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, endo-tracheal intubation, and swan-ganz catheterization." 
however, also asserts that the petitioner "was chosen to be interviewed by Best 
Doctors New York Magazine about his innovative approach in communication with patients." 
- - 
(Emphasis in original.) This claim is highly disingenuous. As discussed above, the petitioner was 
only mentioned in this article as a student of who was actually the physician being 
recognized for an innovative approach in communication with patients. While we do not question 
sincerity, his accolades regarding the petitioner appear somewhat inflated. 
of the Department of Internal Medicine at Long Island College 
Hospital, begins by discussing the national importance of heart disease, an issue not in contention. 
At issue is not whether the petitioner is qualified to work in an area of national importance but 
whether the petitioner enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. More specifically, under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), the issue is whether the petitioner has made contributions of major 
significance in cardiology. For the purposes of thoroughness, we will even consider claims of 
contributions to other areas of medicine. concludes generally that the petitioner has 
produced "groundbreaking clinical and research work in the field of cardiovascular disease, which 
has benefited enormously to advancing [sic] cardiology's understanding, prevention and treatment of 
this deadly condition." Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof.5 
discusses the petitioner's research with interventional cardiology in which the petitioner 
is "investigating the methods to improve angioplasty services offered to cardiac patients." 
speculates that the results of this study "will significantly influence the overall quality of 
cardiovascular care in community hospitals." (Emphasis omitted.) As this study does not appear to 
have been completed as of the date of filing, we cannot conclude that it constituted a contribution of 
major significance as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. 
hrther asserts that the petitioner's recent research on the pulmonary embolism is 
"pioneering." explains that this condition is responsible for up to 60 percent of deaths at 
hospitals and that 70 percent of these embolisms were not diagnosed. states that the 
petitioner "recognized that if he can predict electrocardiographic signs of right heart failure at 
admission in the emergency room and treat patients accordingly, the mortality can be drastically 
reduced for this fatal condition." More specifically, according to the petitioner "was the 
first researcher to identify a particular pattern called as [sic] the 'Global T wave inversion with QT 
prolongation' to be associated with Pulmonary Embolism." notes that this study was 
presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians in 2003. 
does not, however, provide examples of independent hospitals that have issued formal or 
informal guidelines to utilize the pattern discovered by the petitioner to diagnose pulmonary 
embolisms. 
Finally, asserts that the petitioner's work is original and has been widely reported in the 
medical news. First, any clinical research, in order to be accepted for publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that any published and 
funded work must be presumed to be a contribution of major significance. The record does not 
support 
m 
assertion that the petitioner's work has been "widely reported in the medical 
news." provides no examples of this coverage and the record does not include any 
coverage of the petitioner beyond the 1994 announcement of his academic award and the mention in 
Best Doctor, New York, which, as discussed above, focuses on the innovations of - 
discusses the petitioner's current studies. While asserts that the 
results are "eagerly anticipated" and "are expected to directly impact the way that physicians treat 
heart disease around the world," we cannot conclude that incomplete research projects can be 
considered contributions of major significance. In contrast, contributions that have already been 
disseminated in the field and applied on a wide scale would be consistent with a contribution of 
major significance. 
5 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
a cardiologist at Long Island College Hospital and senior author of one of the 
petitioner's articles, praises the etitioner's ability to interpret "the most advanced diagnostic 
techniques." As an example, t) discusses the petitioner's treatment of a woman with 
abnormal heart rhythm whom he diagnosed with a fractured mediport used to deliver chemotherapy. 
As noted above, this case study was published and had been cited 12 times as of April 30, 2009. 
While this case study may be useful in describing a rare case of abnormal heart rhythm, the record 
does not establish that this diagnosis has impacted how patients with mediports are treated at a level 
consistent with a contribution of major significance. For example the record contains no letters from 
cardiac department heads nationwide confirming their implementation of new standards in light of 
the petitioner's case study, medical texts or directions/official guidelines for mediports that 
incorporate the petitioner's work or comparable evidence of his impact in the field. 
provides an additional anecdote where the petitioner made a correct diagnosis of a 
mentally retarded blind patient. does not explain how this single anecdote of a 
cardiologist correctly diagnosing a heart attack after ordering an EKG demonstrates a contribution of 
major significance to the field of cardiology. further asserts that the petitioner "has 
worked on a method to improve" the pulmonary artery catheterization procedure. 
concludes that the petitioner's improvement "will help to minimize any bleeding," 
does not provide any examples of independent hospitals adopting this improved procedure. 
 ina all^, discusses other cardiology procedures mastered by the petitioner. While we do 
not question the importance of competence to patient care, does not explain how 
proficiency with cardiology procedures constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field of 
cardiology. To conclude that the petitioner's proficiency with these procedures is remarkable would 
be to presume that most cardiologists are incapable of performing the procedures necessary to 
practice in their fields and, thus, effectively incompetent. 
another cardiology fellow at Beth Israel Medical Center (affiliated with Long 
Island College Hospital) and one of the petitioner's coauthors, reiterates that the petitioner published 
a case study on a p~eviously unreportedside effect from mediports. As discussed above, the record 
lacks evidence of an impact from this case study consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
further notes that the petitioner articipated in a quality improvement project at Long 
Island College Hospital, although 4 characterizes the project as "nation wide." We note 
that the memorandum for the next meeting of the quality improvement committee at Long Island 
College Hospital, where the petitioner worked, includes 26 other committee members, suggesting 
that the petitioner was not singled out for this review work based on unique contributions of major 
significance. the work behind the petitioner's other presentations and 
concludes that the petitioner's multidisciplinary skills allowed 
him to complete these studies, he does not provide any examples of how these presentations and 
publications have already impacted the field. Rather, he merely affirms an impact. USCIS, 
however, need not accept primarily conclusory assertions6 While asserts that the 
6 1756, Inc. v. Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
petitioner's research "was extensively quoted in other journals" the record contains evidence of no 
more than 12 citations, not all of which may predate the filing of the petition. 
In a second letter, asserts that the petitioner's work with sudden death in patients with 
enlarged hearts due to ischemia and non ischemic causes "has directly led to improvements in my 
own clinical practice and I know that the same has been the case with regard to several of my peers 
who have also been extremely impressed by his research project." This letter does not demonstrate 
the petitioner's impact beyond his immediate circle of peers. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from 
regarding the petitioner's work at the Wilson Medical Center. 
Significantly, this work all postdates the filing of the petition. 
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 International, 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. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion 
that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; 
see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafl of 
Calfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and vague 
claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.7 The petitioner submitted 
only a single independent letter and this letter does not suggest the author has applied the 
beneficiary's work. The petitioner also failed to submit corroborating evidence in existence prior to 
the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted of articles he has authored in professional or major trade publications. This 
evidence qualifies under 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103, 1 108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions in the field above pursuant to the 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). At issue for this criterion are the nature of the roles the 
petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entities that selected him for those roles. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner was a "leading member" of Long Island College Hospital's 
Quality Assurance Committee and Graduate Medical Education Committee. Counsel hrther asserted 
that the petitioner's role teaching other internists at Long Island College Hospital qualifies under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
of Medicine at Long Island College Hospital, confirms that the petitioner was a 
member of the hospital's Graduate medical Education Committee and the Department of Medicine's 
Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee, but does not state that the petitioner was a 
"leading member" of either committee as claimed by counsel. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
a cardiologist who "graduated from Beth Israel Medical Center," affiliated with 
Long Island College Hospital. Neither counsel nor the petitioner explains why is in a 
better position to explain the petitioner's role at Long Island College Hospital than the 
Director of Medicine at that institution. 
sserts that the petitioner did perform in "lead roles" for "important committees at the 
hospital. Specifically, references a Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation committee, a 
Harrison Review committee, a Root Cause Analysis Team and the Quality Assurance Team. As 
discussed above, the memorandum announcing the next meeting of the quality Assurance Team 
references 26 other members. The petitioner is not singled out in this memorandum as a leading 
member of the committee. 
Regardless of the petitioner's membership and role for various internal committees, at issue is the 
nature of the petitioner's role for an organization or establishment. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Ultimately, the petitioner had worked as a resident and fellow as of the date of filing. The contracts for 
these positions confirm that they are primarily educational training positions. We are not persuaded 
that these positions constitute the type of leading or critical roles contemplated by 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The ~etitioner claimed to meet this criterion for the first time in resuonse to the director's reauest for 
addiiional evidence based on his March 25, 2008 contract with, which lists 
total compensation of $465,000. This contract, however, postdates the filing of the petition. Thus, it is 
not evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). Moreover, the record contains an invitation to 
apply for a cardiologist position at Progressive Hospital with a salary of $562,464 plus a bonus. While 
characterized by counsel as a job offer, it is only an invitation to apply for the job. It reveals, however, 
that the petitioner's current salary is not significantly high remuneration in relation to other 
cardiologists. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that we should consider the petitioner's compensation in comparison 
with all physicians, including primary care physicians. The petitioner presumptively claims that 
primary care physicians, while possibly pursuing the lower paid employment out of a desire to practice 
this type of care, may occupy these positions due to a lack of the required skill to be a higher-paying 
specialist. We are not persuaded that it is useful to compare the petitioner's remuneration in the well- 
paid specialty of cardiology with all physicians, including primary care physicians. Regardless, as 
stated above, the petitioner did not begin earning six figures until after the petition was filed. Thus, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under only two of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability, 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi). Nevertheless, we will review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits 
determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence 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[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at "3. 
As stated above, the record reflects that the petitioner has performed several internal review duties at 
Long Island College Hospital. The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant 
consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's national or international 
acclaim. See Kazarian, 2010 WL 7253 17 at *5. Consistent with this decision, we are not persuaded 
that these internal duties are indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
As further stated above, the petitioner has authored scholarly articles. Pursuant to the reasoning in 
Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at "5, however, the field's response to these articles may be and will be 
considered in our final merits determination. We are not persuaded that 12 citations of one case 
study, with no evidence that the other articles and presentations have garnered any attention in the 
field, are indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim or a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field." See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a medical fellow 
(trainee) as of the date of filing, relies on his internal duties for his employer, his participation in case 
studies that have been published or presented with little or no response in the field and the praise of his 
immediate circle of peers. While this may distinguish him from other medical fellows, we will not 
narrow his field to others with his level of training and experience. On appeal, the petitioner references 
''a world renowned cardiologist" for whom there are 201,000 search results on 
www.~oogle.com, "a significant number of [which] are publications and citations." Thus, it appears 
that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
111. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
cardiologist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field of cardiology. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a cardiologist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.