dismissed EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-G-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 23,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
'" 
The Petitioner, an internal medicine physician, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only one 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 previously presented 
documentation and a brief stating that he meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the 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 1-G-K-
(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, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the 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). 
However, satisfaction of at least three criteria 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); R!jal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), af{"d, 683 
F.3~d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (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 (USC IS) 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 qualifying 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently an internal medicine physician at Because 
the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the Petition, the Director found that that the Petitioner met the 
judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also 
meets the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the scholarly articles 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does 
1 
Although he previously claimed eligibility for the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the display criterion at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and the high salary criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), on appeal the Petitioner does not contest the decision of the Director, otfer further 
arguments, or submit additional evidence for these criteria, nor does the record support a finding that he meets them. 
Accordingly, we will not address these criteria in this decision. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield ofspecificationfor which class~fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has served on a peer review committee 
evaluating clinical practices and processes at As such, the Director found that the Petitioner 
met this criterion, and we concur with that determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly. artistic. athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor signjficance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he "proposed a new disease called 
'and that "[t]his disease would be named after [him] when more and more 
cases are diagnosed and more citations start appearing." The record of proceedings contains the 
Petitioner's article,' which was published in the 
m 2015. The Petitioner presented evidence showing that this 
article has been cited one time. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has 
taken interest in a petitioner's work. While the Petitioner provided the article that cited to his work, 
the article does not reflect that his work was singled out as particularly important. Rather, the 
Petitioner's article was used as background information to the authors' paper. In this case, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the citation to his paper is refl-ective of a contribution "of major 
significance in the field." 
Furthermore, the record includes several recommendation letters that mention the publication of the 
petitioner's paper. However, the letters do not explain how the authors have used the Petitioner's 
published finding in their own work or how his work is considered as a contribution of major 
significance . in the field. Publications and presentations are not sufticient 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 couti reaffirmed 
its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 
F.3d at 1122. While the selection of the Petitioner's article in a professional journal verifies the 
originality of his work, it does not ne·cessarily reflect that his work is considered of major 
significance. As discussed above, the Petitioner's citation history does not support a finding that his 
contributions have been of major significance in the field. Nor does the record include other 
documentary evidence sufficient to support such statements. 
In addition, although the Petitioner indicates that the proposed disease might be named after him in 
the future, the!actual impact has yet to be determined. A petitioner cannot establish eligibility under 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
this criterion based on the expectation of future significance. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter (~l Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! 
Comm'r 1971). The Petitioner did not establish that his proposal resulted in a final determination of 
a new disease or demonstrate how this signified a major contribution. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an 
individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insut1icient to establish original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'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 tield" were insufficient was 
"consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept prjmarily conclusory statements. I 756. 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 contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence ql the alien's authorship q{ scholarly articles in the field, in prq{essional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
\ 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored an article that was published in the 
Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peT:f'ormed in a leading or critical role fiJr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director previously determined that he met this criterion in 
the issuance of a request for evidence. In the decision, however, the Director indicated that in 
reviewing the evidence, the Petitioner did not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
Communication in a request for evidence is not a final agency determination, and the record reflects 
that the Director ultimately made an unfavorable finding for this criterion. As discussed below, we 
have reviewed the record of proceedings to determi~e whether the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
The record reflects 
that the Petitioner bases his eligibility on his role as vice chair of the internal 
medical department at and submitted several reference letters. According to 
vice president of medical affairs at the Petitioner is the vice chair of the internal 
medicine department who "reviews certain practice parameters of all physicians in his department 2 
times a year." In addition, stated that as 
vice chair, the Petitioner performs "an integral role in meetings making the fusion of different 
hospital systems protocols merge uniformly." Further, chair of the internal 
medicine department at attested to the Petitioner's role in reviewing the quality of inpatient 
care of other physicians. Moreover, senior medical director at described 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
the Petitioner's role as "serving the usual responsibilities, including fairly sensitive peer review 
situations." 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself. Here, the Petitioner is vice chair of the 
internal medicine department. However, the letters do not indicate where his position tits in the 
overall hierarchy of Based on the Petitioner ' s position title and the lack of details contained 
in his reference letters , the Petitioner has not shown that he performed in a leading role for 
The record does not includ~ evidence , for example, ditTerentiating his role as vice chair of the 
internal medical department from the roles of the employees in other departments or as a 
whole. 
Furthermore, a critical role is one in which a petitioner \vas responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. Although the letters reflected that he reviews the work of other 
physicians, the Petitioner did not show how his work impacted standing in the tield. For 
instance, the Petitioner did not provide evidence reflecting that garnered attention based on 
his work. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not established that he performed in a critical role 
for 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organization 
or establishment to have a distinguished reputation. The record does not include sufticient evidence 
to establish that enjoys a distinguished reputation. The submitted letters, for example, do not 
discuss reputation in the community or reference any awards or rankings. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not shown that has risen to a level of eminence . For these reasons , the 
•Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating his eligibility under this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above , the record only satisfies two 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 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 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 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 revievv' of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 
5 
Matter of 1-G-K-
Ill. 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(BIA2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-G-K-, ID# 134934 (AAO Jan. 23, 2017) 
6