dismissed EB-1A Case: Nephrology

identifying d3ta deleted to 
prevent cL.:~. '.) .Llwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC coPy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: MAY 022012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b){l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1 1 53(b){l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 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> ,Ii' 
{' . 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
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)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. § 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, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets at least three ofthe ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted comparable evidence of his 
extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any ofthe 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 
Page 3 
(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. 723 101 sl 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). 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. § 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. at 1121-22. 
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 1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
I 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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on October 18, 2010, seeks to classify the petItIoner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a medical doctor specializing in nephrology and kidney transplantation. 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence 
under 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
graph of his trophy and award certificate (2003) from the .. 
emphasis added) indicating that he received "3rd Prize of selected 
students of medical sciences group" (emphasis added) for his medical doctor thesis entitled ''The 
Study of Serum Lipid Profile in Renal Transplanted Patients & its Effects on lanted 
,,3 The also submitted an October 2010 letter from 
I had the opportunity to supervise [the petitioner's] work from a very early stage of his 
career .... In fact, in 2001 I supervised [the petitioner's] Medical Doctor Thesis .... 
The thesis, titled 
was a 
and involved ninety-three (93) renal transplant patients. 
In response to the director's -~" .... ~~,,~ submitted information 
about the 
of the cuments pertam to 
did not receive. Instead, the petitioner received a "3rd Prize" at the 
The petitioner's documentation included information from 
yvlVIJ"VUla., stating: 
The majority 
Wikipedia, an online 
The given annually by the Iranian Research 
Organization for Science and Technology (IROST) to individuals who have made 
outstanding achievements in research, innovation and invention, in fields related to 
science and technology. 
* * * 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
3 The record reflects that the petitioner earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree from 
PageS 
In 1987, the leading Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology 
(IROST), affiliated to the ministry of Science, Research and Technology ofIran, decided 
to institute an award which acknowledges the Iranian outstanding achievements in the 
field of Science and Technology. 
However the first session which was held in 1987, was only for Iranian nationals, but 
from the fifth session it became an international award. 
* * * 
The is a national version of 
which only Iranians who are less than 30 years old can participate. This award has 
started since 1999. 
With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from this open, user-edited internet site.4 See Lami/em Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 
F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the AAO will not assign weight to information for which 
~ source. The petitioner also submitted a document in Farsi entitled 
_ but the English language translation of the document was not certified by the 
translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Any document containing 
foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by 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 lish. Id. 
The response also included examples of two researchers who received 
Prizes as scientists and two established scientists who received 
4 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a 
common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by 
people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information .... 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given 
article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiIWikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on April 12, 2012, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
Page 6 
The petitioner also submitted letters 
producers for the 
interviewed the petitioner for IRIB n programs m 2003 Their letters, 
however, do not specifically discuss the petitioner's receipt of a ''Third'' Prize. Further, the 
petitioner failed to submit certified English language translations of the IRIB television 
interviews as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). _claims that the 
petitioner's prize "is the most prestigious medical prize in Iran given by the President" and "the 
most prestigious award a scientist can earn in Iran." The AAO notes, however, that the 
petitioner's third prize was not given by the President ofIran. Further, the information submitted 
the . about the more exclusive contradicts _ 
"is the most prestigious medical prize 
in Iran given by the President" and "the most prestigious award a scientist can earn in Iran." It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect ofthe petitioner's 
proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. IfUSCIS fails to believe that a fact stated in 
the petition is true, USCIS may reject that fact. Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l154(b); 
see also Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. 
Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C.1988); Systronics Corp. v. INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 
2001). 
The documentation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's "3rd Prize" at 
the is a nationally recognized prize for excellence in the 
petitioner's field of endeavor. The AAO notes that participation in the 
is limited to individuals age thirty and younger. Thus, experienced pro m 
have long since completed their medical training are excluded from consideration. Further, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence 0 f the national or international recognition 0 f his third prize at 
the The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's award be nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there 
is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's third prize is recognized beyond 
the context of the festival where it was presented and therefore commensurate with a nationally 
or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
~ioner submitted evidence of his receipt of awards 
_including "best and distinguished thesis of School of Medicine" (2001), "Distinguished 
Researcher Award" (2001), "Excellent Rank in the field of student research," "Excellent Article 
Award" at ''the First International Congress of the Students of Medical Sciences" (2001), a 
Certificate for obtaining "3rd Rank in the research plan for evaluating the clinical competency of 
medical interns related to the common clinical diseases" (2001), and various ''Token of 
Appreciation" certificates. The preceding student awards reflect institutional recognition by the 
Page 7 
petitioner's alma mater rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
that he and four others presented an abstract in the "Best Abstracts" session of the Renal 
Association BTS Annual Conference in 2009. There is no documentary evidence showing that 
the honor was recognized beyond the context of the conference where it was presented. In 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted general information about the BTS and 
its "online abstract submission system," but he failed to submit evidence showing that the 
preceding certificate from the BTS constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the Head of the Department of Health and Social 
Affairs stating he received an award for presenting his paper at 
the "2nd Young Medics International Conference" (YMIC) in 2003. The petitioner also 
submitted an e-mail from the Organizing Committee ofthe YMIC stating that he received a $400 
travel grant to attend the 2003 YMIC. The petitioner's initial evidence also included an August 
15, 2007 letter informing him ofreceipt ofa $400 travel grant to attend the 4th YMIC in 2007. In 
response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a welcome message providing general 
information about the 5th YMIC, but there is no supporting documentary evidence showing that 
the petitioner's certificate from YMIC travel grants equate to 
nationally or internationally reco excellence in the field of endeavor. 
• ! 
I 
planned project and have agreed to support your application for funds to help you advance your 
work in the field of organ lantation." In to the director's RFE, the petitioner 
submitted information about the on 
the BTS website stating: 
Description: Travelling Fellowships will usually be awarded annually. The purpose of 
the awards is to enable the recipient to visit other transplant centres in the United 
Kingdom or abroad to widen their knowledge and experience. A report for publication, 
and possibly presentation for St John Ambulance, will be expected within six weeks of 
the visit. 
Type: Travel Awards. 
* * * 
Restrictions: Applications are invited from workers in all aspects of transplantation. 
These may include basic scientists, surgeons, physicians, nurses and others whose work 
benefits transplant patients. 
Page 8 
The petitioner also submitted seeking 
''worthy applicants" for the travel award. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, 
the traveling fellowship was designed to help him advance his work in the field of organ 
transplantation and to widen his "knowledge and experience," and not to honor or recognize his past 
"excellence in the field in the field of endeavor." There is no documentary evidence showing that 
petitioner's travelling fellowship is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a trophy and certificate indicating that he was "the youngest delegate" 
who attended the 
The petitioner also submitted a "Certificate of Attendance" certifying that he was ''the youngest 
presenter" who participated in the 8th CAST in September 2003. There is no evidence showing 
that the preceding trophy and attendance certificates equate to a nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, rather than simply acknowledgments of 
the petitioner's participation in the two conferences as the youngest presenter. The petitioner's 
evidence also included a 2003 letter . that he was "one of the successful 
recipients of the in the amount of $1000 to attend 
the 8th CAST. The petitioner also submitted a September 2003 certificate stating that he was 
''the youngest recipient of the awarded at the 8th 
CAST. The petitioner also submitted a December 2005 letter reflecting that he 
received a his paper submitted for presentation at the 9th CAST 
in 2005. submitted a certificate stating that he received a 
and travel subsidy for his abstract submitted for presentation at the 
The AAO 
notes that competition for the preceding travel scholarships and 
was limited to ''young'' physicians and researchers in the 0 career. 
Experienced professionals in the field generally to not seek such awards and travel subsidies. 
There is no supporting documentary evidence showing that any of the preceding awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the BTS and information from the 
society's website stating: 
You can apply to become a BTS member on-line following the link below. The 
application is in two parts. You first apply for a BTS web account. This provides you 
with a pending membership account that prompts you to complete a member profile. You 
will require a valid email address to be able to do this. You will receive an email 
confirming your pending membership account. You can sign in immediately and have 
access to your account and non-member events and the second stage of the on-line 
application process. 
The second .application stage requires you to complete an on-line membership application 
accessed from within your account. You will be able to save your application and return 
to it before you submit it to the BTS Executive for approval. Once approval has been 
granted you will be required to make your sUbscription payment to complete the 
application process. You be [sic] required to provide two sponsors from two current 
Society Members and their valid email addresses. If this presents a difficulty you should 
discuss your application with the General Secretary. 
The preceding instructions for becoming a member of the BTS do not indicate that the society 
requires "outstanding achievements" of its members as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). There is no evidence showing that the BTS requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. 
npl~1,.,,"n<·r ",. .... nu .. ",.,... evidence of his membership in the 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted ''The Membership 
Surgical Royal Colleges of Great Britain 2008/9 Annual Report" stating: 
The Membership Examination ofthe Surgical Royal Colleges of Great Britain (MRCS) is 
designed for candidates in the generality part of their specialty training. It is a crucial 
milestone which must be achieved if trainees are to progress to specialty surgical 
training as defined by the nine surgical Specialty Advisory Committees (SACs). The 
purpose of the MRCS is to determine that trainees have acquired the knowledge, skills 
and attributes required for the completion of core training in surgery and, for trainees 
following the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme, to determine their ability 
to progress to higher specialist training in surgery. 
* * * 
The MRCS examination has two parts: Part A (written paper) and Part B Objective 
Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). 
[Emphasis added.] 
Page 10 
Counsel's letter responding to the director's RFE summarizes information posted on the RCSE's 
website at www.rcseng.ac.uk. According to the RCSE's website, to be eligible to obtain the 
Diploma of Member, all candidates must: 
1.1 hold a primary medical qualification that is acceptable to the United Kingdom 
General Medical Council for Full or Limited Registration or to the Medical 
Council in Ireland for Full or Temporary Registration; overseas candidates 
must hold a primary medical qualification acceptable to the Councils of the 
four Colleges; 
1.2 have passed Parts 1,2 and 3 of the MRCS examination; and 
1.3 have applied for Membership and been approved by the relevant College 
Council. Details of the procedure for election to Membership may be 
obtained from individual Colleges. 
See http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/exams/docs/mrcS/intercollegiate regulations june06.pdf, accessed on 
April 13, 2012, copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
The information in the 2008/9 Annual Report indicates that membership in the RCSE is a 
necessary advancement requirement "if trainees are to progress to specialty surgical training." 
Moreover, the AAO is not persuaded that holding a primary medical qualification, passing the 
required parts of the MRCS examination, and attaining the approval of the relevant College Council 
are "outstanding achievements." The AAO notes that that the legislative history makes clear that 
Congress intended this classification for those with a "career of acclaimed work" rather than for a 
physician who simply completes the "generality part" of his "specialty training." See H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the European Society for Organ 
Transplantation (ESOT). In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted information 
about the ESOT's "Membership Application Procedure" stating: 
Membership ofESOT is acquired by following the steps specified below: 
1. The first step of the ESOT membership application is filling out the online 
application form to collect personal data, a photograph, curriculum vitae 
and member profile based on interests in donation and transplantation. 
2. The second step is the approval by so called Support Members. Two members of 
ESOT have to support your membership. During your online application you will 
fill out the names of these two ESOT members and they will be automatically 
asked via e-mail to confirm your professional acquaintance with the field of 
donation and transplantation. 
Page 11 
3. After both support members have approved your membership your application is 
sent to the ESOT Secretariat and Treasury and payment of your dues will be 
handled. 
4. The ESOT Council will need to list your membership and during the next ESOT 
Congress, according to the bylaws, the General Assembly will need to confirm 
your membership status. 
The preceding steps for becoming a member of the ESOT do not indicate that the society 
requires "outstanding achievements" its members as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to 
demonstrate that the ESOT requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in his field. 
counsel asserts that the petitioner is a member of the .. 
but the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence 
from the foundation indicating that holds membership in the Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. 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). The petitioner's response 
included a document but the English language 
translation of the document was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). There is no documentary evidence (such as bylaws or rules of admission) 
from the_demonstrating that it requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. relating to the alien's work in the./ieldfor which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title. date. and author of the material. and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers. 5 
5 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 12 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted letters from 
_ both producers for stating that they interviewed the petitioner for 
television programs in 2003 and 2006. The petitioner, however, failed to submit video footage 
of him being interviewed for the 2003 _elevision program. A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or 
other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, there is no documentary evidence indicating the specific viewership 
for the particula~ television programs in which the petitioner appeared. The petitioner also 
submitted an English language translation of a December 24, 2003 letter from 
"'V",.UJLF. the attendance of the petitioner and five other students 
on ecember 27, 2003. The English language translation of_ 
letter does not specifically identify the media outlet conducting the interview and 
original letter in _ was not submitted. Moreover, the petitioner failed to 
submit English language translations of the petitioner's two _elevision interviews as 
required by the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(3) and 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Finally, the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires ''published material about the alien" (emphasis 
added) including ''the title, date and author of the material." A television interview featuring the 
petitioner does not meet these requirements. 
In response to the director's RFE, counsel asserts that the journal articles and conference 
presentations authored by the petitioner meet this regulatory criterion. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion, however, requires published material "about the alien" rather than material 
authored by him about his own research. The regulations contain a separate category of evidence 
regarding the petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The plain 
language of regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about 
the alien" relating to his work rather than simply about the petitioner's work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) 
ofthe Act. See also, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. 
Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). It cannot be 
credibly asserted that the submitted journal articles and conference papers authored by the petitioner 
are "about the alien." 
The petitioner's response to the director's RFE included citation data from GoogleScholar.com 
and ResearcherID.com showing the number of cites to each of the petitioner's journal articles. 
For instance, according to the submitted citation data, the petitioner's most frequently cited 
article entitled "Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for beta-thalassemia major: Experience 
in South ofIran" had nine citations. The petitioner, however, did not submit copies of the citing 
articles demonstrating that they were about the petitioner. Regardless, articles which cite to the 
petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work, and are not about the petitioner or even 
his work. As previously discussed, the plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." With regard to this regulatory criterion, a 
footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal probative value. There is 
no evidence indicating that the citing articles discuss the merits of the petitioner's work, his 
standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on the field, or any other 
Page 13 
information so as to be considered published material about the petitioner as required by this 
regulatory criterion. Moreover, the AAO notes that the articles citing to the petitioner's work 
likely referenced numerous other authors. The articles citing to the petitioner's work are more 
relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be fully addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language 
requirements ofthis regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the yvork of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petition submitted documentation demonstrating that he meets the plain language requirements 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's 
finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[ e ] vidence 0 f the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). 
The petitioner submitted seven letters of support discussing his work. 
was working with me within the 
to be his mentor and personally 
since March 2004, when he joined our team at the 
From March 2004 to August 2004, [the petitioner] 
and after that time, I continued 
* * * 
In 2009, [the petitioner] and I co-authored an important paper, published last year in the 
British Medical Journal . ... 
* * * 
Page 14 
We found that women who undergo the breast reduction surgeries will generally have a 
low risk of accidentally being found to have breast cancer. In this paper for the First time 
in medical literature we debated whether routine histological examination of tissue 
specimens after breast reduction surgeries is necessary. We challenged the current 
practice that young women throughout the world are effectively undergoing a 
"screening" procedure after cosmetic breast reduction surgeries without appropriate 
informed consent procedure and recommended a guideline for better practice. 
By the end of 2010, [the petitioner] will have more than twenty-five (25) published 
articles and seventeen (17) abstracts in internationally known scientific journals. He has 
co-authored two booklets and has presented his research works in more than 30 national 
and international scientific meetings. 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's article in British Medical 
Journal is frequently cited or that his fmdings are otherwise majorly significant to his field. 
With regard and the other references' comments regarding petitioner's published 
and presented work, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of 
scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to 
or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets 
this criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship 0 f scho larly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being 
interchangeable. 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 Publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence 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 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the 
alien had not demonstrated contnbutions ofmajor significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no 
presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major 
significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence showing that his 
work has been cited to by others in the field. The number of independent citations per article, 
however, is minimal. For instance, the petitioner submitted citation data from GoogleScholar.com 
and ResearcherID.com reflecting that none of his articles have been cited to more than nine 
times. Moreover, according to the submitted citation data, the number of "Times Cited" for 
many of the articles authored by the petitioner was zero. The petitioner has not established that 
the number of independent cites to his body of published and presented work is indicative of 
original contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
states: 
Page 15 
[The petitioner's] research and work has been original contributions to the general 
surgery and transplant surgery specialized fields. I would like to highlight one of his 
research works from the which I have closely followed 
and work titled: 
comments that he greatly admires the petitioner's work, but does not 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has substantially impacted treatment 
methods in the medical field, influenced the work of other researchers in the field, or otherwise 
equates to original contributions of "major significance" in the field. According to the citation 
data submitted by the from Goo lar.com and ResearcherID.com, the number of 
In a previous study, [the petitioner] and his colleague found that in the United Kingdom, 
there is a lack of consensus amongst kidney specialists on how to manage the discovery 
of misattnbuted paternity. Misattributed paternity refers to when patients who believe 
they are father and child, are in fact not genetically related. In the process of preparing for 
living donor kidney transplantation, a genetic test can reveal such a situation. This creates 
several ethical questions that the doctor must face in relation to whether or not this 
discovery should be shared with the patient or the family. The paper concludes that one 
way to manage this dilemma is for only necessary testing to be ordered and to discuss the 
possibility of misattributed paternity prior to testing and establish whether or not the 
patient wants to know the result. 
[The petitioner's] abstract was recently published in the American Journal 
Transplantation after his colleague presented it at the "American Transplant Congress" in 
2010. 
There is no citation evidence for the preceding abstract in American Journal of Transplantation 
demonstrating that the petitioner's findings were majorly significant to his field. Moreover, _ 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the results from the petitioner'S misattributed 
paternity study are being widely applied by others in the field or that they otherwise equate to 
original contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
continues: 
Page 16 
In the next few months, [the petitioner] and I intend to implement this study inside the 
United States and to find out if there is consensus amongst U.S. kidney specialists 
(nephrologists) and transplant surgeons for dealing with this ethical dilemma. The results 
of this study will be important for the development of U.S. national guidelines which 
address the issue. 
* * * 
I would like to highlight [the petitioner's] work, which I have closely followed and 
greatly admire, in the following two studies: 
o n. 
(Accepted for publication, 2010) 
impact of donor myelofibrosis on outcome 
of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation. 
In this article which will be published in the next few months, [the petitioner] and his 
colleagues have suggested that kidneys from donors with myelofibrosis disease, a 
disorder of the bone marrow, may have significant vascular and parenchymal disease. 
This may compromise the ability of that kidney to work adequately in the recipient body. 
In the preceding paragraphs, discusses his intention to collaborate with the 
petitioner in the future and an article by the petitioner that was "accepted for publication" in 
Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation in 2010. expectations 
regarding his future collaboration with the petitioner and a research study by the petitioner 
published after October 18, 2010 do not constitute evidence that the petitioner's work was 
already influential as of that date. The petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility as of the filing 
date. 8 c.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under 
a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision 
further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that his as 
of yet unpublished research will subsequently prove influential. Ultimately, in order to be 
meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval 
as of the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 P.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). 
Accordingly, research results that were not published as of the date of filing and, thus, had not 
been disseminated in the field as of that date, cannot establish eligibility as of the date of filing. 
To hold otherwise would have the untenable result of an alien securing a priority date based on 
the speculation that his work might prove influential while the petition is pending. 
states: 
Page 17 
In this article, [the petitioner] and his colleagues have suggested that zinc 
supplementation may increase the serum levels of sex hormones in the hemodialysis 
patients which may improve some aspects of their sexual function. Considering the fact 
that sexual dysfunction is a common problem in hemodialysis patients, this can be quite 
helpful and important point when treating such patients. 
_does not provide specific examples of how the above findings have impacted the field at 
large. The citation evidence submitted by the petitioner from GoogleScholar.com and 
ResearcherID.com indicates that "Impact of oral zinc therapy on the level of sex hormones in 
male patients on hemodialysis" was cited to zero times. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's article is frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
we 
I was his professor for 
discusses 
In this study, [the petitioner] and his colleagues compared the risk factors and incidence 
of cancers in patients with kidney-pancreas and kidney transplantation. 
reviewed data covering the period from 1988-2006 from the 
data set available and the 
in the United States. 
The data spanned eighteen years and covered 248,297 patients (14,152 patients with 
kidney-pancreas transplantation plus 234,145 patients with kidney transplantation). [The 
petitioner] and his colleagues are responsible for this study, the largest study to date on 
the risk factors of cancer and kidney disease, extraordinary work in a very important 
field. 
According to the citation data submitted by the petItIoner from GoogleScholar.com and 
ResearcherID.com, the preceding article was cited to zero times. _ does not 
provide specific examples how the results from the petitioner's study ar~y others in 
the field or how they otherwise equate to original contributions of "major significance" in the 
field. 
states: "I have known [the petitioner] pro 
Transplant Surgery Specialty Registrar between 
transp lant unit at 
conferencepr(~Sel~t~tIDI 
February 2008 and January 2009 in our 
lished articles and eight 
further states: 
Page 18 
I would like to ... mention the following key work, which I greatly admire. 
In this paper, [the petitioner] and his COUI;;'l)o:,U'''~ 
for the first time that one 0 mo commonly used 
medications used worldwide for immunosuppression in transplant patients, can rarely 
cause secondary hyperoxaluria (increase in the oxalate excretion by the kidney) and acute 
renal failure (kidney failure) in the kidney or kidney-pancreas transplant patients. 
Bearing in mind the usual irreversibility of oxalate nephropathy (renal failure secondary 
to high oxalate levels) and its acute onset, early recognition of such an adverse effect is 
essential to prevent its progression. 
significance in the field. 
_continues: 
was cited to only once. The petitioner has not 
CItatIon is indicative of an original contribution of major 
* * * 
[The petitioner] proposed that by studying the TEG profiles and the platelet function in 
the SPKT and kidney transplant patients using the new TEG technologies and comparing 
that with the non-transplant surgical/medical patients we cannot only improve our 
knowledge on the pathophysiology of haemostasis problems in the transplant setting but 
also we can improve our current anticoagulation protocols towards individualization of 
the anticoagulation in different patients based on their TEG tracings. 
_comments on the petitioner's research projects, but _ does not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work has substantially impacted treatment methods in the medical 
Page 19 
field, influenced the work of others in the field, or otherwise constitutes original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
I have known [the petitioner] since 1997 when he enrolled in my course of "Hematology 
Diseases" during the fourth year of his medical school period. 
* * * 
While I have followed [the petitioner's] professional success closely over the years, I 
would like to start by commenting on a paper that we coauthored in 2003. Our paper has 
been cited at least nine other scientific to the citation is: 
from 
This was the first 
scientific report from Southern Iran on the experience of using bone marrow 
transplantation for treating the beta-thalassemia major patients. 
.'.' •• ' •• •• ' •• ".' ...... ' .... '. '. J' .' titioner's article entitled 
Experience in South of 
Iran" is indicative of an original contribution of major significance in the field. The petitioner's 
field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing research 
that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of "major 
significance" in the field. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner's work. 
[The petitioner] conducted the study based on personal review of study patients and data 
collected by other doctors in the clinic. [The petitioner] published the results in indexed 
or internationally recognized medical journals. This research and thesis found that the 
lipid profiles or cholesterol, HDL and LDL levels were increasing following the 
transplant of the kidney. The study found that if doctors controlled the blood pressure and 
Page 20 
lipid profiles via diet or cholesterol and blood pressure lowering medications, then the 
transplant long term outcome would be more successful. This research work was later 
published in Transplantation Proceedings Journal . ... 
While the petitioner's doctoral thesis is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research 
must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention 
from the scientific community. Any doctoral thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be 
accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every physician who performs 
original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution 
of "major significance" to the field as a whole. There is no documentary evidence showing that 
the petitioner's findings have been widely implemented by other physicians in the field or that 
his work otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
I also served as 
titled; 
arsl 
patIents regarding transplant procedure, what to expect, what 
happens when, and how long the recovery is expected to take. The booklet also covered 
hospital regulations regarding hygiene pre and post transplant, medication options, the 
benefits and risks, pregnancy and transplantation, the importance of diet, exercise and the 
risks associated with smoking. 
indicates that the petitioner wrote an instructional booklet for transplant patients 
but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner'S 
was recogmzed beyond that hospital such that his booklet constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than 
limited to a particular hospital, research institution, or employer. 
This paper is the first in medical literature to discuss the impact of the commonly 
prescribed blood pressure medication, Atenolol, on kidney transplantation. Other 
research has shown that while the medication Atenolol decreased blood pressure, it also 
increases triglyceride (hyperlipidemic effect). [The petitioner's] other research had also 
shown that controlling both blood pressure and cholesterol is important for successful 
transplantation. However, for the first time, this paper studied and stated that the effect 
oflowering the blood pressure via the medication Atenolol is more important that [sic] 
Page 21 
the expected increase in triglyceride (hyperlipidemic effect) caused by the medication. In 
short, prescribing this blood pressure medication to address high blood pressure was good 
for the "graft," or the transplanted kidney. 
on the petitioner's research findings, but he does not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work is being utilized by others in the medical field. The 
citation evidence submitted by the petitioner from GoogleScholar.com and ResearcherID.com 
indicates that "Impact of Atenolol consumption on development of chronic renal allograft 
dysfunction" was cited to only once. The petitioner has not established that this minimal level of 
citation is indicative of an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
I am especially proud of our cooperation on two papers that we have coauthored in which 
we hypothesized for the first time in the medical world that adding Pentoxitylline to the 
kidney perfusion fluid while the kidney is out of the donor's body and awaiting 
transplantation into the recipient, helps in preservation of the organ. We also have 
hypothesized that by prescribing Pentoxitylline to the patients undergoing different 
contrast radioloigic procedures, we might be able to protect their kidney from the damage 
induced by the contrast. These are only two of the key contributions that [the petitioner] 
has made to the field. 
discusses his co-authorship of two papers with the petitioner, he fails to 
provide any specific examples indicating that the petitioner's research has been actually applied 
by other physicians in his field, so as to demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions have been 
of major significance. states that the petitioner has "more than twenty-five 
(25) published articles seventeen (17) abstracts in top scientific journals," but there is no 
evidence indicating that the petitioner's findings are frequently cited by independent researchers 
or that they otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references 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 reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a physician researcher 
who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, widely 
Page 22 
applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, the AAO cannot conclude he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles in scientific journals and at 
international medical conferences and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner meets 
this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that he presented his work at various scientific 
meetings and medical conferences as evidence for this criterion. The petitioner's field, however, 
is in the sciences rather than the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates 
that it applies to artists. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; 
not every criterion will apply to every occupation. The petitioner's presentations at international 
conferences are more relevant to the preceding "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that he has already met. Moreover, it is neither arbitrary, 
capricious, nor an abuse of discretion to conclude that presentations at scientific conferences do not 
qualifY as display of the petitioner's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases pursuant to 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 
that he meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
C. Comparable Evidence Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
On appeal, counsel asserts that presentation of the petitioner's work at international conferences 
in the United States, Asia, Europe, and Australia is comparable evidence of his extraordinary 
ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The AAO notes that the petitioner's 
conference presentations were addressed under the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that the petitioner has satisfied. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten categories of 
evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Thus, it is the petitioner's burden 
to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the 
alien's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the specific objective 
evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 
visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified 
Page 23 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain 
language requirements of at least three categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Regardless, nothing in the record indicates that presentation of one's work is unusual in the 
medical field or that invitation to present at conferences where the petitioner's work appeared 
was a privilege extended to only a few top physicians. Many professional fields regularly hold 
conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and network with other 
professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations, 
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. While presentation of the 
petitioner's work demonstrates that it was shared with others and may be acknowledged as original 
work based on its selection for presentation, the AAO is not persuaded that his presentations 
significantly impacted the field or that his level of recognition extended beyond the engagements in 
which his work was presented. For instance, there is no evidence showing that any of the 
petitioner's presentations have been frequently cited by independent researchers in their work or 
that his presentations have otherwise significantly impacted his field as a whole. 
III. 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 ofthe field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, 
in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers 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 ofthat small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" 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. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination.6 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement 0 fthree categories 0 f evidence. I d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
6 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of mct and law. See SO/lane v. DOJ, 381 F Jd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(\)(ii). See a/so section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DRS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
Page 24 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.