dismissed EB-1A Case: Neonatology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF K-K-1-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. II, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a neonatologist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(A). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidence requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserting that he meets the necessary criteria 
and has shown his eligibility for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States 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 two options for satisfying this classification· s initial evidence 
Matter of K-K-.1-
requirements. First, a petitiOner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as 
awards. published material in certain media. and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0).1 
This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the '·truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality,·· as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true:· Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a board-certified pediatrician and neonatologist. Because he has not indicated or 
established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, to meet the initial 
evidence requirements, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
In denying the petition. the Director found that the Petitioner met two criteria: authorship of 
scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and performance in a leading or critical role under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the original 
contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the 
record, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three 
criteria. 
Evidence of the alien "s original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfY. The 
first is evidence of his contributions in his field. These contributions must have already been 
realized rather than being potential, future contributions. He must also demonstrate that his 
contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions arc scientific. 
1 
This case discusses 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 detennination. See also Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126. 131-32 (D. D.C. 20 13): Rijal v. USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 20 II). 
'We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 
.
Matter of K-K-J-
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature . The final requirement is 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 
meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003). The term "contributions of major 
significance" connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field . S'ee 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013). 
The Petitioner provided copies of presentations, published works, and letters of support from 
individuals in the field that discuss the impact of his work. On appeal, he submits three new 
attestations, and maintains that the Director erred in concluding that he did not satisfy this criterion. 
While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the Petitioner's work , 
none .of his references provide examples of how his work is already influencing the field.3 For 
example, the Petitioner submitted a Jetter from an attending neonatologist at 
in Texas. refers to an article that the Petitioner authored regarding the 
role of centrally inserted venous catheters in nosocomial infections. and hypothesizes that his clinical 
research will ultimately reduce infant mortality and morbidity rates in the United States. Another 
letter, from a professor of pediatrics at the and an attending 
physician at hospitals throughout Washington State , claim s that the Petitioner's published works on 
neonatal sepsis, are innovative and served as a successful teaching tool. Another letter, from 
a neonatologist at and assistant professo r for 
states that he is familiar with the Petitioner's published work in 
claims that the Petitioner participates in his idea-sharing forum for 
neonatologists, and praises his clinical research in the field of infections. While these letters 
demonstrate that the Petitioner is a talented researcher with potential, they fall short of establishing 
that he had already made contributions of major significance in the field of neonatology . For 
instance, states in his letter that he "sincerely hope[ s ]" that the Petitioner '·gets the 
opportunity and receives appropriate funding to further research and analyze this issue.'' 
Beyond the letters, the Petitioner has authored articles in his field. Published articles and 
presentations , which fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they are indicative of contributions of major significance. L.'f 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030. 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). a.f(d in part. 596 F.3d at 1115. In 20 10. 
the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in finding that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. See 596 F.3d at 1122. As 
evidence of the impact of his published work. the Petitioner relies on the numerous letters s ubmitted 
by peers and other colleagues in the field that refer to his 
published articles and their content. 
3 While we do not cite to each letter in support of the petition, we have consider all of them. See Noroo:::i v. Napoliwno . 
905 F. Supp . 2d 535, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 20 12)(citing Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justi ce. 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.l7 (2d Cir. 2006)). 
.
Maller qf K-K-J-
However, the record as constituted does not indicate the extent of the Petitioner 's influence on other 
neonatologists working in the field, nor does it show that 
the field has significantly changed as a 
result of his work. The fact that he has made presentations and published articles that other 
neonatologists have referenced is not, by itself, indicative of a contribution of major significance. 
The writers do not describe how the Petitioner's work relating to infections and sepsis in infants has 
made an impact in the field at large. Their comments indicate that he has added to the general pool 
of knowledge, but fall short of verifying that the recognition of his work is widespread throughout 
the field . As noted, 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 , 580 F.3d at I 036; afrd in part, 
596 F.3d at 1115. 
While the Petitioner has earned the admiration of his references. there is insufficient evidence 
demonstrating that he has made original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
Many of the submitted letters claim that he is a highly skilled neonatologist, and note that his 
research and published articles are innovative and inspiring . However. none of the authors identify 
any contributions that he has made in his field that might satisfy this criterion's requirements. 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of 
proof. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989), af("d, 905 F.2d 41 
(2d Cir. 1990); Al-yr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner , No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942, *5 
(S.D.N. Y. 1997). 
Moreover , the letter from of in Arizona states that if the 
Petitioner "continues his work as a clinician , medical educator, and researcher as a member of the 
scientific and medical community in Neonatology in the U.S., there will be additional future benefits for 
this country." Future prospective benefits that the Petitioner ' s findings may have in the field are not 
elements that will quality him under this criterion. The regulation requires that he has already made 
major and significant impacts within his field. as well as the other references, does not 
identify how the Petitioner has already made a significant impact in his field, which is required by this 
regulatory criterion. Furthermore, it can be expected that , to rise to the level of contributions of 
major significance, other experts would have already reproduced and confirmed the Petitioner's 
results and applied those results in their work . Otherwise , it is ditlicult to gauge the impact of the 
Petitioner ' s work. The record , however , does not include evidence that the field has widely applied 
the findings of his research. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major sign(ficance in the field." 
(Emphasis added). Without additional, specific evidence showing that his work has been unusually 
influential, widely applied by the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, the Petitioner cannot establish that he meets this 
criterion. 
4 
.
Matter of K-K-.1-
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field. in pr<~(essional 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 
the and Thus, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion , and 
the record supports that finding. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fin- organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). 
The Petitioner has submitted recommendation letters detailing his role in streamlining neonatal 
protocols and policies for m Illinois. The letters indicate that he 
serves as the hospital's Section Chief of and as a liaison to the 
which collaborated with the hospital to develop a perinatal center. They also demonstrate that he is a 
member of several of the hospital's improvement committees. In these roles, the letters confirm that 
he has played a critical role in shaping the future of perinatal care for both entities. The record also 
includes evidence of the distinguished reputation of The Director 
determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we concur with that determination. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ix).4 
This criterion requires evidence of "a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the tiel d." Here, the Petitioner asserts that his gross annual income 
of $231,255 in 2016 "is well above the average salary paid to other neonatologists.'' 
As the Director stated. the Petitioner must submit evidence of earnings in comparison with those 
performing similar work. Matter <>{Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 955 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994 ): see also 
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering National Hockey League 
(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). The 
Associate Commissioner in Price compared the petitioner's monetary earnings and his rankings with 
those in his field performing similar work. Notably the Associate Commissioner compared the 
petitioner's 1991 winnings to those of the remaining athletes on the Professional Golfers· 
Association Tour during the same year. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 955. Therefore, the Petitioner must 
compare his income with income earned by those in his field during the same period. 
In support of this assertion, he submitted evidence from the Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data 
Center's Online Wage Library (OWL), demonstrating that the annual salary for physicians and 
surgeons in at a Level IV (fully competent) wage rate between July 2016 and June 2017, 
4 
Although the Petitioner does not assert that he meets this criterion on appeal, we will nevertheless address his prior 
submissions. 
c 
.
Maller of K-K-J-
was $232,357. 5 According to this evidence, however, his annual salary of $231,255 is equivalent to. 
and not higher than, the prevailing wage for fully competent physicians and surgeons in the 
area. 
He also submits excerpts from vanous websites regarding the national average salaries for 
neonatologists. For example, an excerpt from states that the average salary for 
neonatologists in the United States is $198,715 . This printout, however. does not distinguish 
between levels of expertise , years or experience , or geographic indicators; therefore , while the 
Petitioner may have earned approximately 15% more than this national average , he has not 
sufficiently shown that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services , in relation to others in the field. 
An excerpt from provides a more comprehensive overview of the salary 
ranges for neonatologists. Although it states that a well-established neonatologist earns between 
$96,800 and $145,200, it further provides that the median salary for neonatologists at the 75th 
percentile 
is approximately $255,882 , and for those at the 25th percentile is approximately $202.799 . 
He has not shown that his 2016 income, which was lower than the median salary of neonatologists at 
the 75th percentile, satisfies this criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner relies on a Jetter from Chief Executive Officer of 
who explains that the hospital is a not-for-profit entity with limited resources 
that serves a low-income neighborhood . He states that in recognition of the Petitioner 's valuable 
contributions , he "currently receives a salary that is above market value and is certainly higher than 
what most other neonatologists receive at · As noted. the data from the FLC Data 
Center's OWL demonstrates that his salary is equivalent to the prevailing wage rate for fully 
competent physicians in 
The record contains insufficient evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's rate of compensation 
constituted a high salary or was significantly high in relation to others in the tield. Accordingl y, he 
has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible for the classification because he 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). Thus. we need not fully address the totality of the material s in 
a final merits determination. Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20 . Nevertheless, we have reviewed the 
5 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence from the FLC Data Center for pediatricians in which demonstrates that 
the annual salary for that occupation at a Level IV (fully competent) wage rate was $179.400. While we acknowledge 
that he is a board-certified pediatrician, he is claiming extraordinary ability as a neonatologist. Therefore, we will 
consider evidence pertaining to this occupational category. 
Matter of K-K-.1-
record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-K-J-, !D# 767393 (AAO Jan. 11, 2018) 
7