dismissed EB-1A Case: Neuropsychology

u.s.Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
ServicesPUBUCCOPY
identifyingdata delekd to
preventclearly tmwarranted
invasion ofpe'ntal privacy
FILE:
SRC 06 16452241
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
', 2,~,.",..•,.~.. ".,".,.
11, ",f-J ....
Date: JAN 22 2000
INRE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office.
~~
~obert P. Wiemann, Chief
Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa
petition for abandonment. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, whereupon the director
withdrew the initial decision and denied the petition on its merits. The matter is now before the
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.
On appeal counsel submits a brief, the petitioner's curriculum vitae and her academic credentials and
resubmits the reference letters submitted previously. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the
director's decision.
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education,
business, or atWetics 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.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991).
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or
international acclaim at the very top level.
... ~ -
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a
neuropsychologist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a
major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability.
The record is supported by the petitioner's academic credentials; attestations of the petitioner's
employment, wages and symposium participation, manuscripts (many of which do not appear to have
been published); certificates of conference participation and reference letters. The record also contains
significant documentation that does not relate to the petitioner, including significant documentation that
appears to be submitted only to establish the importance of the petitioner's area of employment,
voluminous curriculum vitae in Spanish for her references and other documentation in Spanish that is
not obviously related to the petitioner. We acknowledge that complete certified translations of the
references' curriculum vitae would not establish the petitioner's own eligibility. Moreover, the
petitioner's own articles in Spanish are submitted as evidence of her authorship, not the content of the
articles, and thus do not require accompanYingtranslations beyond any necessary translation of her
authorship role. That said, the record does contain other Spanish language documentation that is not
translated. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that all foreign language
documents be accompanied by complete certified translations. Thus, we will not consider any foreign
language documentation, other than the petitioner's articles, that is not accompanied by the necessary
translations.
On appeal, counsel notes the positions the petitioner has held and asserts that the AAO "should
consider that [the petitioner] could not have earned such a high rank in these elite organizations without
being at the top of her field." We note that perfonning a leading or critical role for an organization is
merely one of the regulatory criteria, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), of which an alien must meet at least
three. While we will consider the petitioner's positions below as they relate to that criterion, the
petitioner's job titles cannot, by themselves, establish eligibility for the exclusive classification sought.
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.1
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is
sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized national
or international experts in their disciplines orfields.
While the petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion, we acknowledge that she lists association
memberships on her curriculum vitae. The record, however, contains no evidence of the official
1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this
decision.
Page 4
membership requirements for those associations. Thus, she has not submitted the required initial
evidence required to meet 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 alliedfield ofspecificationfor which classification is sought.
Initially, the petitioner relied on a letter from a neuropsychologist, who asserts that he
and the petitioner were the only two neuropsychologists to attend a "Training the Trainers" conference
in London sponsored by Novartis Laboratory. According to _upon returning to Argentina, he
and the petitioner organized a three-day course to pass on the information learned at the London
meeting to neuropsychologists from several Argentinean regions and states.
Chief of Neurology at Hospital D.F. Santojanni, also confirms the petitioner's
participation in the Novartis conference and further asserts that, in addition to organizing the three-day
course in Argentina, the petitioner had the responsibility to "determine, evaluate and judge among all
the participants, those with the best performance and achievements." _ explains that those
selected "were hired by Novartis Laboratories to perform the neuro~ evaluations in the
different medical centers." The record lacks confirmation from anyone at Novartis as to the petitioner's
exact role in judging course participants for employment at Novartis.
The petitioner did not address this criterion in response to the director's request for additional evidence.
The director ultimately concluded that passing on the information gained at a training seminar is not
relevant to this criterion.
On appeal, counsel reiterates the claim that the petitioner evaluated course participants for
responsibilities with Novartis. In addition, counsel asserts for the first time that the petitioner's
academic responsibilities evaluating Ph.D. dissertations at the Universidad de Flores in Argentina
serves to meet this criterion.
The record lacks sufficient evidence from Novartis documenting the petitioner's "judging"
responsibilities in connection with the "Train the Trainers" course she organized. In addition, while
serving as an external Ph.D. reviewer may constitute evidence indicative of national or international
acclaim, it is inherent to the position of university faculty to evaluate the work of students. The
petitioner was a full professor at the Universidad de Flores. Thus, the fact that she judged the
dissertations of the students there is not indicative of any recognition or acclaim beyond her employer.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributions ofmajor significance in thefield.
The director concluded that the evidence did not establish the petitioner's overall impact in the field.
On appeal, counsel states:
[The petitioner] is one of the leading neuropsychologists from Argentina and her
invaluable contributions to the field are as follows (i) early Differential Diagnosis
between Dementia and Depression, (ii) Detection of Neuropsychological Irnpainnents
on Neurologically Asymptomatic Patients with Systemic Lupus Erithemathosus
("SLE") Disease (iii) Neuropsychological approach in Schizophrenic and (iv) the
Rehabilitation of Detection of Neuropsychological Outcomes in a very rare and unique
neurological disease named "Marchiafava-Bignami."
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BlA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BlA 1980).
According to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major
significance in the field of medicine, 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 opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However,
CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for
the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not
presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they
support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg!. Commr. 1972».
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field.
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through
her reputation and who have applied her work are far more persuasive than letters from independent
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited
materials reflecting that acclaim.
, Head of the Neurology Department at D.F. Santojanni Hospital, asserts that the
petitioner worked under him from 1995 through 1999. He asserts that she served on his research team
investigating differential mnemic diagnosis between beginning Alzheimer's disea~on and
the potential to improve the effectiveness of the drugs Exelon and Eranz. While_ asserts
that the team presented their results at conferences,he does not explain how their results have impacted
the field. For example, the record lacks evidence that the makers of Exelon or Eranz have utilized the
petitioner's findings to improve their drugs or that improved drugs are in progress based on the
petitioner's work.
, Chief of the Abnormal Movements Division in the Neurology Department at the
University Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, asserts that the petitioner was the Head of the
Neuropsychological Area of the department from 2000 through 2002. _ asserts that the
petitioner performed research on cognitive impairment in idiopathic P~iseases and in
Huntington's Chorea. He does not describe the results of this research or explain how it has influenced
the field of neurology. Finally, while _notes the distinguished reputation of two of the
petitioner's colleagues and collaborators, we will not presume the petitioner's own acclaim by
affiliation. The petitioner must demonstrate her own acclaim.
Chief of the Institute of Biological Psychiatry in Argentina, notes the
petitioner's expertise in diagnosing dementia and depression and thereby distinguishing the two. He
does not explain how this clinical ability has impacted the field of neurology beyond the institutions
where the petitioner has worked. The remaining letters from Argentinean collaborators provide general
accolades with few specifics.
, Chair of the Department of Neurology at the University of Miami, asserts that the
petitioner "came" to him highly recommended by a colleagu~ntina and that he in tum
recommended the petitioner to his colleague, _ does not indicate whether
the petitioner actually worked for him. Rather, he asserts that the petitioner is currently conducting
important research with_ does not identify any specific contributions the
petitioner has made at the University of Miami or explain how the petitioner's work is influencing the
field. _ asserts generally that the petitioner has "made incomparable strides" in the field and
has "c~numerous studies and collaborated with distinguished neurologists." Once again,_
_ does not identify any specific contribution to neurology or explain how it has impacted the field
of neurology.
While the petitioner's research 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 research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding,
must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every
researcher 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. While we acknowledge that the
petitioner is also a practicing clinician, simply demonstrating ability as a clinician is not, by itself: a
contribution of major significance. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate an impact on the practice
of neuropsychology as a whole.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion.
Evidence of the alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade
publications or other major media.
The petitioner has submitted evidence of a published abstract; an article published in Revista
Neurologica Argentina; three book chapters; a list of titles and what appear to be authors identifying
the petitioner as the author of "Trastornos Cognitivos en Psicosis" without evidence of whether this
document represents a list of journal articles, conference presentations or book chapters; published
correspondence commenting on another researcher's article; what appears to be a newspaper article in
an unidentified newspaper; evidence of participation in two conferences and what appear to be
unpublished manuscripts. Counsel lists additional articles in his appellate brief The unsupported
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter
ofLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506.
We will only consider those documents that clearly represent published scholarly articles or scientific
conference presentations rather than unpublished manuscripts, a letter to the editor commenting on the
work of someone else and a newspaper article that has not been demonstrated to be "scholarly."
Moreover, we cannot ignore that publication is inherent to the field of research and scientific academia.
We acknowledge that the petitioner has held predominantly clinical positions, but she has also held
academic faculty positions. The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 224 (2006­
2007 ed.) provides that university faculty spend a significant amount of their time doing research and
often publish their findings. In addition, the handbook acknowledges that faculty face "the pressure to
do research and publish their findings." Id. at 225. The petitioner must demonstrate that her
publication record sets her apart from other academic neuropsychologists in order to meet this criterion.
The petitioner's publication record is not extensive. Regardless, without evidence that the petitioner
has been well cited or other evidence of the impact of the publications, we cannot conclude that she
meets this criterion.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
establishments that have a distinguished reputation.
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions above. At issue for this criterion are
the nature of the position the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that hired her.
The nature of the position must be such that selection to fill the position, in and of itself: is indicative of
or consistent with national or international acclaim. I a neurologist who "has
been working" for the Swiss Medical Group, confirms that the petitioner was the sole provider in
neuropsychology with that group from 2001 to 2002. The fact that this group only required the services
of one practitioner of the petitioner's specialty does not elevate the petitioner to a more critical or
leading role than the remaining medical staff.
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's participation as a panelist and speaker at several
conferences serve to meet this criterion. Weare not persuaded that every panelist and speaker a
scientific conference serves a leading or critical role for the entity organizing the conference or even the
conference itself. Rather, we have considered the minimal evidence of conference presentations as
comparable evidence relating to the authorship of scholarly articles pursuant to the criterion set forth at
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Counsel then reviews the petitioner's past employment.
As stated above,_ asserts that the petitioner was the Head of the Neuropsychological Area of
the Neurology Department at University Hospital from 2000 through 2002. Without an organizational
chart or other evidence of the hierarchy at the hospital, we cannot determine whether this role is leading
or critical for the hospital as a whole beyond the obvious need to employ competent physicians.
Finally,_ confirms that the petitioner was the Head of Neuropsychology at the Instituto de
Psiquiatria (IPBI) from 1996 through 2000. The record, however, does not establish that medical
facilities and hospitals routinely have a large neuropsychology divisions or departments. Rather, given
that the petitioner was the sole practitioner of neuropsychology with the Swiss Group, it would appear
that that it is a specialty with a limited number of practitioners at a given medical facility. Without
additional evidence regarding the size of the neuropsychology division at the Instituto de Psiquiatria
and an organizational chart or other evidence of the hierarchy at the institute, we cannot determine
whether the petitioner's role was leading or critical.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for
services, in relation to others in the field.
The petitioner submitted a letter from • confirming:
[The petitioner] received an annual financial compensation of USD $70,000. For a
neuropsychologist of her caliber, the specified pay reflects her advanced level of
expertise in her field of specialty.
The director specifically requested evidence that would allow a comparison of the petitioner's
remuneration with that of others in the field nationally. The petitioner did not submit the requested
evidence and, thus, the director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated how her
remuneration compared with other remuneration in the field nationally. Counsel does not address this
criterion on appeal and we concur with the director. Without evidence that the petitioner's
remuneration compares with the top neuropsychologists nationwide in Argentina, we cannot conclude
that she meets this criterion.
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a
neuropsychologist to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a neuropsychologist, but is not persuasive that the
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition
may not be approved.
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal
will be dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.