dismissed EB-1A Case: Neurological Surgery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10948019 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 8, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a neurological surgeon, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 1 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 
concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally recognized 
award, nor did it demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria . The matter is 
now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. 2 We review the questions in this matter de novo.3 Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
1 See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . 
2 Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofCha wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). 
3 See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . 
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." 4 The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate international 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 ten criteria 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. 5 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner received her diploma of medicine in 2006 and lrer srcialized in neurosurgery. After 
serving as the chief resident at I !university in the Petitioner embarked on two 
fellowships; one atl I university in I l and the second where she currently works at the 
University o~ las a research fellow. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed to have met the following 
seven categories: 
• Lesser prizes or awards; 
• Membership; 
• Published material; 
• Participation as a judge; 
• Contributions of major significance; 
• Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• Performance of a leading or critical role for distinguished entities. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria relating to judging and 
authorship of scholarly articles, but that she had not satisfied the remaining categories listed above. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she met the evidentiary criteria relating to each of the areas 
upon which the Director issued an adverse determination. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
4 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
5 See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then. if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USC1S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 
2011 ). 
2 
record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the judging and the scholarly articles 
criteria, but not any of the remaining claimed classes of evidence. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner provided student awards, research grants, and travel awards under this criterion. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet these requirements and noted that student awards 
limited to a specific subset of individuals did not qualify because they excluded those already in the 
field. As it relates to the Petitioner's research grants and travel awards, the Director found that she 
did not establish these were awarded for excellence in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner responds to 
some of the elements the Director listed as shortcomings, but she still has not satisfied the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims the accolades she received as a student were thel !university of 
.__ _____ ___,t best young researcher, and the top researcher awards at the 10th and 11th research 
festival, respectively. The Director determined that these awards did not satisfy this criterion because 
they were limited to attendees at the issuing institution and because the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that accolades from such a limited pool were given for excellence "in the field" rather than to those in 
training to join the field. Although the Petitioner's appeal brief mentions these student awards in 
passing, she does not contest the Director's decision or explain how those accolades qualify. Issues 
addressed in this perfunctory manner are considered abandoned on appeal. 6 The Petitioner does not 
assert eligibility on appeal relying on any research grants and we also consider those claims to be 
abandoned. 7 
The only travel award the Petitioner identifies on appeal is the 2013 .__ _______ _. Young 
Researcher A ward. A review of the evidence does not bear out that this award was for excellence in 
the field. The record contains documentation from the issuing organization that the competition 
included the following requirements: the applicants were from a pool who resided in thd I 
who were under 40 years of age, and the candidates were at least published in a regional, non-indexed 
medical journal. Additionally, candidates for this award were "evaluated based on a predefined set of 
criteria including the relevance of the research question, its clinical impact, and novelty value, the 
study design, the results and their interpretation." The Petitioner has not explained how these 
cumulative factors would equate to recognition of "excellence in the field of endeavor." Furthermore, 
although some of the advisory letters from those in her field implied that this was a major award, they 
did not explain how this accolade was a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence 
in the field of endeavor, and most contained very similar language listing the benefits the award's 
beneficiaries received. 
6 Minghai Tian v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014) (stating that "an argument consisting of more than a 
generalized assertion of error" is required to hold that an issue has not been waived); Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. 
App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (a passing reference in the arguments section of a brief without substantive arguments is 
insufficient to raise that ground on appeal). See, e.g.. Leer v. Mwphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Issues raised in 
a brief that are not supported by an argument are deemed abandoned."). 
7 Matter of Zhang, 27 l&N Dec. 569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding that an issue not appealed is deemed as abandoned). 
3 
After considering the Petitioner's claims and evidence, she has not met the plain language 
requirements of this 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claimed her membership in three organizations. After reviewing the Petitioner's 
material, the Director determined that she did not meet the requirements of this criterion because she 
did not establish that the organizations required outstanding achievements as a condition of 
membership. Within the appeal, the Petitioner does not identify any error on the Director's part as it 
relates to this criterion. Instead, she maintains that the memberships she has attained qualify under 
this criterion. 
After reviewing the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that any 
of the claimed organizations require outstanding achievements to qualify for membership. First, we 
consider the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS). The Petitioner presented 
evidence that she held "resident/fellow" membership in this organization. She submitted the AANS 
membership requirements for the resident/fellow level, which consisted of "proof of enrollment in a 
verifiable non-North American neurosurgical training program," and "a recommendation for 
membership by your training program director." Absent from this material is a showing that AANS 
utilized nationally or internationally recognized experts to judge the achievements of prospective 
members to determine if the achievements were outstanding. Also lacking was an indication that 
AANS used this outstanding determination as a condition of eligibility for membership at the 
resident/fellow level. Each of these are mandatory requirements within the regulation. 
The next organization was the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) and the Petitioner was a 
member at the resident level. The Petitioner submitted CNS' bylaws reflecting resident membership 
will "be available to any resident in good standing in" certain accreditation organizations in the United 
States, Mexico, or Canada, "or any fellow in a fellowship immediately following completion of an 
accredited neurological surgery training program." These standards do not reflect that CNS requires 
outstanding achievements of its resident members, and as such this organization does not satisfy this 
criterion's requirements. 
Finally, the Petitioner discusses the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies (EANS). The 
Petitioner documented her membership in this organization. The material relating to EANS reflected 
that candidates who pass both parts of a board examination would be appointed as a Fellow of the 
European Board of Neurological Surgery (FEBNS). The Petitioner asserts that EANS membership as 
a fellow in FEBNS "is evidence of the excellence in neurosurgery that a major society in Europe 
appointed non-European citizens from thel las a" FEBNS fellow. The Petitioner did not 
explain how, and the record lacks documentary support for her conclusion that, as a condition of 
membership simply passing two board examinations amounts to outstanding achievements. It is 
insufficient to allege eligibility through conclusory assertions that are not supported by sufficient 
4 
evidence, which proves the allegation. 8 As a result, the Petitioner has not shown that EANS 
membership qualifies under this criterion. 
On appeal the Petitioner places significant focus on aspects outside of the minimum membership 
requirements of each entity ( e.g., statements made within multiple advisory letters), but she does not 
explain how any of the organizations require outstanding achievements as one of the minimum 
requirements for membership. For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility under this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Before the Director, the Petitioner provided information relating to published comments about three 
of her recent scholarly articles. The Director did not consider citations to her scholarly work to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion as that material was not "about the alien" and instead 
was focused on her scholarly work. On appeal, the Petitioner shifts her focus from the claims and 
evidence she offered the before Director to a public announcement relating to an award. 
As evidence of published material about her, the Petitioner identified a public announcement about 
her receipt of thel I award on the issuing entity's website. Here, the Petitioner did not provide 
the elements required by the regulation in the form of the material's date and author. This shortcoming 
alone means this evidence cannot meet this criterion's requirements. Additionally, the Petitioner did 
not offer any discussion of how the posting of competition results on this organization's website 
equates to one of the qualifying publication types ( a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media). Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner presented evidence that she has reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication in BMJ 
Case Reports. The Director determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion and 
we agree with the Director's conclusion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner provided citations to her published work, to include scholarly articles and book 
chapters, as well as several advisory letters from those in her field that discussed her work. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. In particular, 
8 Matter of Ho, 22 l&N Dec. 206,213 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Fano v. 0 'Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1987); 1756, 
Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
5 
the Director noted the Petitioner's citations to her published works, but concluded that she did not 
demonstrate her record established that she had a citation record that measured up to other 
neurosurgical researchers and in turn, she did not show that her work was of major significance in the 
field. The Director also briefly discussed the advisory opinion letters but did not find that they 
collectively showed that she meets this criterion. In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has she made contributions that were original 
but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the 
contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted it, or 
have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not identify any particular error the Director may have committed under 
this requirement other than to disagree with his adverse conclusion. Although the Petitioner adds 
similar claims relating to her evidence, she does not offer any particular information for us to consider 
beyond what the Director evaluated. Some of the information and evidence the Petitioner offers within 
the appeal, to include citations to her work, postdates the Form I-140 filing date. A petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time it files the nonimmigrant visa petition. 9 USCIS may not approve a visa 
petition if the Petitioner was not qualified at the priority date but expects to become eligible at a 
subsequent time. 10 When she filed the petition, the Petitioner provided evidence about her citation 
record from Google Scholar reflecting her publication of 22 articles that had garnered citations. 
Other researchers' reliance on the Petitioner's work is a positive element and can be a method to 
corroborate the assertion that her noteworthy influence on other's work establishes that her 
contributions in the field are of major significance. However, The Petitioner has not sufficiently 
explained how a scholarly article receiving 24 citations, or 21 other articles sharing 87 citations, 
exhibits her impact within the field in a manner consistent with this criterion's requirements. For 
example, she did not provide the citation rates of other published research in her field that is widely 
recognized as a contribution of major significance for comparison purposes. Nor has the Petitioner 
shown that a notable number of the citing authors placed unusual reliance on her work. Specifically, 
the example citations in the record cite the Petitioner's study as one of dozens of other studies, and do 
not single out the Petitioner's work as significantly notable among other research in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that her citation record "is quite large since the community of 
Neurological surgeons is small .... " Even though the Petitioner provided advisory opinion letters 
whose authors claimed that the field related to neurological surgery is a small percentage of physicians 
worldwide, neither the authors nor the Petitioner offered probative material to enable us to evaluate 
that claim. We note that some of the published material citing to her work has garnered significantly 
more cites than an of her own articles. For instance her article titled, I I 
'---------------------------' had received five cites at the time she 
filed her petition. One of those articles that cited to her work titled, 
'----~----~~~---------------~-------- ........... received 
at least 3 5 5 citations by the time the Petitioner filed her Form I-140. This article citing to her own 
work was published approximately six months later, yet it garnered exponentially more attention than 
9 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
10 See Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971 ). 
6 
even the Petitioner's most cited work. This tends to undermine the claims that her citation record is 
large because her specialized field contains fewer participants. 
Additionall the article titled 
.__ _ ___.' earned more than 100 cites by the Petitioner's priority date, yet her article that this work cites 
to was her most favorable piece with only 24 citations. Although her citations indicate some in the 
field have referenced her work, the Petitioner did not offer comparative material showing her citation 
numbers rose to the level of major significance consistent with this regulatory criterion. 11 
As it relates to the advisory opinion letters in the record, the do not describe si nificant contributions 
the Petitioner has already made in the field. For instance,L--,---.,.,--r------,1 a professor and the 
director of the I lsurgery program at the University of .__ __ ___. who supervises the 
Petitioner's fellowship, discussed how the citations to her work had increased from 57 at the start of 
her fellowship to 111 on the petition filing date. He surmised that this demonstrated that her "work 
has been among the most cited in the field in the past several years, and she has been consistently cited 
more than one would expect from an average researcher in the Neurological Surgery field." Absent 
additional evidence, an above average citation rate is insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner has 
made contributions of major significance in her field. Contributions of major significance connotes 
that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. 12 
~---____.I also discussed the prevalence and costs of neurological diseases and tied those important 
factors to some of the Petitioner's work. In particular he focused on a new surgical approach the 
Petitioner described in a published article. I I noted this procedure received editorial 
comments from leading surgeons and concluded that "[t]his provides just one example of the 
importance of her published work, providing evidence of how her prospective work can revolutionize 
... treatment options, by the careful development and researching of new techniques." He further 
stated that her "work will provide substantial benefits to the United States by improving treatments 
and lowering medical costs." While a prospective benefit to the United States is one of this 
classification's separate requirementsJ I did not describe how the Petitioner's work has 
already been so influential on her field. Although the procedure I I highlighted would 
appear to be an incremental improvement to the general pool of knowledge, the record does not support 
the position that this development was widely adopted in her field at the time she filed the petition. 
When reviewing the letter frortj l a professor atl I University and her supervisor 
at her fellowship at his university, we observe that he presented identical language found within D 
I Is letter relating to the Beneficiary and the importance of her work. Considering the remaining 
portion oti ts letter, he discussed the Petitioner's achievements and career, and he noted 
one of the Petitioner's published works that included a video received over 1,200 views on the Journal of 
Neurosurgery's YouTube channel. I I asserted that because this video accumulated the 
highest number of views in comparison with other articles in the same publication issue, that this proved 
11 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua/F.2 app .. https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (Policy Manual) (providing an example that 
peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others 
working in the field, or entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as 
authoritative in the field, may be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
12 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-36. 
7 
the importance of her work. First, although the Petitioner provided material relating to this video 
refl,...,._........_......,.,_.,_,.. ......... .....,.,,O views, she did not offer material relating to the other videos in this same publication 
tha referenced, and thus the record does not support his assertions. Second, even if0 
~--~' s claims are true, his letter does not establish that the video made a significant impact within 
the Petitioner's field. 
The remaining letters the Petitioner submitted briefly discussed her skills and achievements, but they 
did not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact her 
research or work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 13 On 
the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not 
considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 14 As a result, 
the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of serving as the author of several published scholarly articles in 
addition to multiple chapters in a scientific handbook related to her field. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion and we agree with that determination. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed she performed in a leading or critical role by presenting 
her work at professional conferences, and for three instances in which she served as a course instructor 
at the University ofi I The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. The Director noted that conference presentations did not satisfy the 
requirement that she perform the qualifying role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. Relating to her role as a course instructor, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not show her role was leading or critical for the university as a whole, rather than for 
one of its components or departments. 15 
Within the appeal the Petitioner presents the same claims she offered before the Director. Her appeal 
brief does not make any reference to the Director's analysis, nor does it explain how he might have 
erred in his adverse conclusion under this criterion. Simply disagreeing with the Director's 
determination ( 1) without explaining how she performed in a leading or critical role through presenting 
her work and training the next generation of neurosurgeons, and (2) without documenting that she 
performed those roles for entities with a distinguished reputation, is insufficient within these 
proceedings. After reviewing the entire record, to include the arguments and evidence submitted on 
13 Policy Manual, supra. 
14 Policy Manual, supra. 
15 Evidence under this criterion must provide specifics relating to how the Petitioner's role was critical to the organization 
as a whole instead of for a sub-element within the organization. Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 
2019 WL 2330181, at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019); Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 
8 
appeal, we adopt and affirm the Director's analysis and ultimate conclusion under this criterion.16 
Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion on appeal. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward that goal. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. 17 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her work 
is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 18 Moreover, the record does 
not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, 
and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 19 Even 
within her response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner indicated she intends to work as a fellow, 
which is generally accepted as training prior to embarking on a career in a specialty field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
16 See Matter of P. Singh, Attorney, 26 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2015) ( citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 
1994)); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) (finding that if a reviewing body decides that the facts and 
evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately confronted and correctly resolved by a previous entity, 
then the appellate body is free to adopt those findings provided the appellate decision reflects individualized attention to 
the case). 
17 Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
18 H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
19 See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
9