dismissed EB-1A Case: Obstetrics And Gynecology

US. Department of Homeland hurity 
:&fitifying data deleted to 
U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Admmzstrat~ve Appeals 
prevenl c! early ~nw~tited 
 Washmgton, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of personal pfivaq 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Dl RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
wn F. Grissorn 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifj for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. 
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 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. 
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 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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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 an obstetrician and 
gynecologist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally 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 qualifl as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she 
claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner was submitting "Awards and Appreciation Certificates" 
including a 1997 presidential "award" for the petitioner's first published book; a 1988 "University 
President Award for Mastery and Valuable Services"; a commendation letter fiom 
President of Beheshti University; an "acknowledgement letter" fiom - 
Director and Editor-in-Chief of the Research in Medicine Journal and an "acknowledsement letter" 
" 
fiom - Deputy Director of Research, Beheshti University. 
The petitioner submitted a 1997 letter signed by , addressed 
"Dear Author." The letter congratulates the unidentified author on the publication of his or her first 
book, which is also not identified. In addition, the petitioner submitted certificates of appreciation of 
the petitioner's services, "judging in connection with scientific articles" and efforts as a research 
consultant. The director requested evidence of recent awards and evidence of the criteria for any 
awards received. In response, counsel reiterated that the petitioner had received a 1997 "presidential 
award" from the President of Iran. Counsel asserted that the "criteria for receiving such high level and 
national awards are very demanding and one must [be] extremely deserv[ing] in a nation of 75 million 
to be selected for such an honor." Counsel further asserts that the selection process involves a review 
of selected published books by the Ministry of Higher Education, university professors and presidents, 
leading researchers as well as approval by the Iranian Medical Association, the President's Office on 
Medicine and "contributions made by physicians." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not substantiated the assertions about the selection 
process for the award and that an award from 1997 was not evidence of sustained acclaim in 2007 
when the petition was filed. On appeal, counsel asserts that while there are no written criteria for the ' 
selection process, "such awards and their selection process[es] are universal." Counsel further asserts 
that the time elapsed since the issuance of the award should not diminish its significance. 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, section 203(b)(l)(A) requires evidence of "sustained" acclaim. Thus, 
evidence that predates the petition by 10 years, without evidence of more recent acclaim, is insufficient. 
Second, as the letter is addressed to "Dear Author" and does not identify the petitioner's book, it is not 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
even clear that the petitioner is the recipient of this "award." Finally, 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). We are not persuaded that a "Dear Author" letter is a "universal" award for which we 
must presume a competitive selection process. The use of "Dear Author" on the letter and the failure to 
identifl the author's book strongly suggest that the Iranian president commonly issues congratulatory 
letters to first-time authors. The record lacks evidence regarding the number of such letters issued, 
media coverage of the selection for such letters, or similar evidence indicating that receiving such a 
letter is a recognized award or prize. Counsel's assertion that written material about the award does not 
exist does not create a presumption of eligibility under ths criterion. According to the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i), it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate not only the 
receipt of award or prizes but also that the awards or prizes are nationally or internationally recognized. 
We will not presume that the issuance of a congratulatory letter addressed to "Dear Author" is a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award simply because it was signed by the President of 
Iran, a country with a population of 75 million people. The non-existence or unavailability of initial 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2). 
Finally, letters of appreciation cannot be credibly asserted to constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards. Insofar as the letters thank the petitioner for performing duties relating to 
the remaining criteria, they will be addressed below. 
In light of the above, the record does not contain nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards issued to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, counsel indicated that the petitioner is or was in the process of becoming a member of the 
Society of Gynecologic Oncologists (SGO), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada 
(SGOC), the Iranian Association of Surgeons and the Iranian Medical Council. In response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the petitioner is the only member of 
SGO from Iran and participates in their conferences and educational programs. Counsel contended that 
it is an honor for any physician and discusses the prestige of SGO conferences. Counsel also provided 
vague assertions about the actual membership criteria. In addition, counsel asserted that the petitioner 
is a member of SGOC and the Iranian Medical Council and has made presentations at conferences 
sponsored by these entities. As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petitioner submitted her membership cards for 
SGO and SGOC but no bylaws or other evidence fiom either society setting forth the membership 
criteria. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not responded to the request for evidence of the 
membership criteria for the societies of which she is a member. On appeal, counsel reiterates his 
previous assertions and references the evidence documenting that the petitioner presented her work at 
conferences sponsored by these societies. 
According to the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
not only that she is a member of an association but that the association restricts membership to those 
with outstanding achievements as judged by national or international experts in the field. While the 
petitioner has complied with the first requirement, submitting her membership cards for SGO and 
SGOC, the record is absent any evidence of the membership requirements for either society. We will 
not presume exclusive membership criteria from the fact that the petitioner's abstracts were accepted for 
presentation at large symposiums organized by these societies. Conference presentations are 
comparable to published articles and will be considered below pursuant to the criterion set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). As the record lacks the societies' bylaws or other evidence that would allow 
us to evaluate whether either of the petitioner's memberships is qualifying, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets 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 jeld for which classflcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner has never asserted that she meets this criterion and the director did not address it. While 
we acknowledge the submission of citations of the petitioner's work, the articles which cite the 
petitioner are about the authors' own work or recent trends in the field. Thus, the citing articles cannot 
be considered to be published material "about" the petitioner, relating to her work. In light of the 
above, the petitioner has not established that she meets 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 of speciJication for which classzfication is sought. 
, a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM) where the 
petitioner worked, asserts that the petitioner reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication to the 
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics and several Iranian publications. - 
further asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion based on her service on a Research Committee of 
Medical College of shahid Beheshti University in 1997. Counsel also listed several appointments 
without explicitly asserting that they serve to meet this criterion, including an appointment as a member 
of the "Editorial Board" of Understanding Cancer. The petitioner submitted a 1990 appointment order 
confirming her appointment as a research committee member at Shahid Beheshti University where she 
was employed as a professor. Another notification, dated May 24, 1997, from the same university 
confirms that the petitioner "studied and evaluated 16 research plans submitted by the Deputy 
Directorate for Research. A May 3 1, 1997 Notification confirms her study of two additional research 
plans approved by the university research council. The petitioner was reappointed to the research 
committee in 1999. A 1995 Notification states (grammar as it appears in the original): 
In execution of para. 3-7 of the By-Law for Promotion of Faculty Members, subject of 
effective cooperation plan at the official research council of the university and rendering 
specialized consultation services and in execution of para.2 of the University 
Specialized Research Council at its 205" session, subject of qualified judges opinion 
poll on the research projects offered prior to be raised in research council sessions and 
prior to the issuance of active cooperation certificate of research and consultation 
services, this certifies that [the petitioner] proved her interests and qualifications for 
giving precise scientific opinions on Gynecology & Obstetrics research projects, 
following attendance at the First Research Methodology Workshop, and the council has 
also been benefited from her consultancy and specialized opinions of her. 
Since rendering services requires deep review of essays and reference books, total 
services of [the petitioner] covers 25 hours since the year 1986. 
This notification is extremely ambiguous as to the petitioner's exact duties for and role on this 
committee. 
The petitioner also submitted the Summer and Winter 2002 issues of Understanding Cancer. The title 
page-is in English. The petitioner is not named among the 45 members of the ~ditorial Board. The 
record also contains a letter from a professor at Shahid Baheshti University, 
confirming that the petitioner reviewed manuscripts for Research in Medicine, a ournal of the 
university's faculty. Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from -! Editor of the 
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. thanks the petitioner for her assistance 
reviewing manuscripts submitted to the journal. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence of the significance of the petitioner's judging services, counsel discusses only the petitioner's 
manuscript reviews and submits letters acknowledging reviews for the International Journal of 
Gynecology and Obstetrics. The second letter asserts that the peer reviewers for this journal are 
selected from outstanding, internationally recognized experts in the field but also states that the 
petitioner was one of 439 reviewers over the past year. 
The director concluded that inclusion as one of 439 reviewers was not indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner served on the editorial 
board of Understanding Cancer. The petitioner submits the cover page of a different issue of the 
journal and a foreign language page from the journal. A name is highlighted and the petitioner's name 
is translated on the foreign language document. The translated name is not a certified translation and 
the highlighted name in a foreign alphabet is not discernable to us as the petitioner's name. As noted 
above, the English language editorial pages of the Summer and Winter 2002 issues lists 45 editors, 
none of whom are the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she served on the 
Editorial Board of Understanding Cancer. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 -92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. The petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies 
between the English language list of editors, which does not include the petitioner's name, and the 
foreign language document which purportedly does list the petitioner. 
The evidence submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 "9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26, 2005). The petitioner served on a research committee with unspecified duties at the university 
where she worked as a professor. The petitioner has not demonstrated that this service is indicative of 
or consistent with national or international acclaim outside of the university where she worked. The 
petitioner also reviewed manuscripts for two journals, one of which is limited to articles fiom the 
university where the petitioner worked at the time. We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer 
reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the 
field and, by itself, is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart fiom others in her field, such as evidence that she has 
reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, received independent 
requests fiom a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner has not submitted 
consistent evidence that she has served on an editorial board. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field 
The petitioner has never specifically claimed to meet this criterion and the director did not address it. 
We note the submission of reference letters, published research articles and evidence that the petitioner 
has presented her work at conferences. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume, however, that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. 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. As will be discussed below pursuant 
to the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the evidence purportedly demonstrating the 
impact of the petitioner's scholarly articles is, in fact, minimal. 
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. 5 204.5(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 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. 
a professor at AECOM and one of the petitioner's collaborators, asserts that the 
petitioner worked on a project at AECOM examinin the role of nanobacteria in ovarian, uterine and 
omental serous carcinoma. Specifically, & explains that the petitioner formulated 
hypotheses, identified cases of interest and gathered clinical and laboratory data. asserts 
that the etitioner's work on this project "will result in the publication of this research data." Dr. 
recent research proposal, which had yet to produce results as of 
the date of filing. 
 does not explain how the results of the petitioner's unpublished 
research have already impacted the field such that her work at AECOM can be considered a 
contribution of major significance as of the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must 
establish her eligibility. see 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 197 1). Finally, 
 notes that the etitioner has been involved in previous 
projects, the results of which she has published. 
 does not, however, provide any 
specifics about these projects or explain how they have already impacted the field at a level 
consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
who has coauthored articles with the petitioner, also discusses the petitioner's work 
on nanobacteria. notes that nanobacteria had already been associated with heart 
disease, aortic and carotid plaques, kidney stones, polycystic kidney and prostate disease. = 
Fl 
asserts that the petitioner is investigating whether nanobacteria "may play an important role in 
t e ca cification of the psammoma bodies, as well as in pathogenesis" of uterine and ovarian cancer. 
speculates that this study "had an important clinical impact because it could determine 
biomarkers that will predict responsiveness to this agent, and ultimately result in an increase in 
survival of patients, with better quality of life." does not assert that this work has 
already had a major impact on the field consistent with a contribution of major significance, such as 
by providing examples of independent hospitals adopting the petitioner's results into their 
- - 
diagnosisltreatment guidelines. 
asserts that the petitioner's first research project in 1982 involved the study of thyroid tuberculosis. 
opines that this study "offers the very 
 helping clinicians to 
identify subsets of patients with cancer." (Emphasis added.) 
 further asserts that the 
petitioner also investigated tuberculosis of the female 
 - asserts that the petitioner presented the results of this second study, he does not provide examples of 
how either tukrculosis study has impacted the field. b also fails to explain the 
significance of the petitioner's study of the causes of therapeutic a ortions in Iran. 
asserts that the petitioner collaborated on several projects at New York University and 
AECOM, includin investigations of osteoporosis, cervical cancer and anencephaly. Once again, 
while dsserts that this work was presented at conferences or published in journals, he 
does not explain how this work has impacted the field. As stated above, the regulations contain a 
separate criterion for the publication of scholarly articles and we will not presume that submitting 
evidence relating to that criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) creates a presumption that 
the petitioner also meets this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
h 
, a professor at AECOM, discusses the petitioner's skill in instructing in the 
dissection la oratory of one of courses. oes not explain how the petitioner 
has impacted the field of obstetrics/gynecology. 
a professor at the New York University School of Medicine who has 
coauthored an article with the petitioner, predicts that the petitioner's work will benefit the national 
interest of the United States. At issue for the classification sought, and this criterion in particular, 
however, is whether the petitioner has demonstrated contributions of major significance consistent 
with national or international acclaim in her field. asserts that the petitioner's "stature 
as a Physician-Scientist" distinguishes her from other "leading experts in the field" because only two 
percent of medical graduates are physician-scientists. is not persuasive. The issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor. New York State Dep't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r. 1998). 
Even if we accepted that most physicians are not engaged in clinical research, this fact would not 
create a presumption that every clinical research study is a contribution of major significance. Dr. 
notes that the petitioner published two books and 20 articles in Iran, but does not provide 
how any of these works have impacted the field. 
The petitioner also provided several letters from colleagues in Iran providing general praise of her 
competence as a physician. None of these general job reference letters explain how the petitioner has 
made contributions of major significance. 
While the record includes attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work, none of the 
petitioner's references provide examples of how the petitioner's work is already influencing the field. 
While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is respected by her immediate circle of 
collaborators, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major 
significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner authored two books and several articles in Iranian publications as well as in English- 
language publications. As noted by the director, one of the petitioner's English-language publications 
was accepted but not yet published as of the date of filing. On appeal, counsel reiterates that the 
manuscript had been accepted for publication prior to the date of filing. 
 The petitioner must 
demonstrate her eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
requires evidence of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Thus, the only evidence we can consider is evidence of scholarly articles that had already appeared in 
such publications prior to the date of filing. Significantly, an article only accepted for publication 
cannot garner the author any national or international exposure, let alone acclaim, until the article is 
actually published and distributed. Regardless, the petitioner had several abstracts, articles and two 
books published as of the date of filing. Thus, we will consider those publications. 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, (OOH), available at 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm#training (accessed September 3, 2009) and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding), provides that a solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a 
permanent position in basic biological research. As a researcher must demonstrate published research 
prior to even obtaining a permanent job in the petitioner's field, published research alone cannot serve 
to set the petitioner apart from others in her field. Specifically, published research alone, which is 
indicative of some national or international exposure, is not necessarily indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Rather, we look to the community's reaction to that published work. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted: 
Some of [the petitioner's] articles have been quoted and used as Related Articles in other 
authors' publications. For example, Hormone Replacement Therapy in Breast Cancer 
Patients and Survivors originally published in 2003 has now been used as Related 
Articles in more than 19 articles. Her article, Preserving Fertility in Invasive Cervical 
Adenocarcinoma by Abdominal Radical Trachelectomy and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy 
was referred to with the July 27, 2007 submission as Exhibit C. They are now 
mentioned as Related Articles in 23 articles and submitted as Exhibits D2 and E2 
extracted from PubMed site. In most of the articles submitted in association with this 
application, [the petitioner] has been the first author and corresponding author. 
As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. Moreover, counsel does not explain what he means by "related 
articles." It does not appear that the petitioner's research has actually been cited by 19 and 23 
articles. Rather, the PubMed exhibits referenced by counsel are not relevant to the impact of the 
petitioner's published work in the field. Exhibit A2 contains the PubMed search results for the 
phrase "malignant strurna varii." The results number 118, 22 of which are review articles. The 
petitioner's article is number 13 of these results, but the results do not provide the number of 
citations. All of the articles contain a link for "related articles," but the existence of related articles, 
which would appear to be articles about the same subject, does not demonstrate the impact of the 
petitioner's article. 
Exhibit D2 provides PubMed search results for an unknown word, phrase or name provided by the 
National Center for Biotechnology. The search produced 19 results. Without information about the 
nature of the search, however, the results are meaningless. Exhibit D3 includes the results of a 
similar search that produced 23 results, one of which is an article by the petitioner. Once again, 
without knowing the keyword, phrase or name for this search, the results are meaningless. Counsel 
has never explained how the existence of "related" articles that address the same subject matter as 
those authored by the petitioner demonstrates the petitioner's influence in her field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of minimal citation. Specifically, the petitioner submits 
six articles, one of which postdates the filing of the petition and three of which are authored by the 
petitioner herself or a coauthor. This record of citation is not consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. Even if we 
were to conclude that the petitioner's number of publications alone was sufficient to meet this 
criterion, for the reasons discussed above and below, the petitioner would still not meet at least three 
criteria. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion. Nevertheless, the petitioner submitted several 
appointment letters, including appointments as the Director of Instructions for the Gynecology and 
Obstetrics Ward at Sahid Baheshti University in 1995, a member of the research committee at the same 
institution in 1990 and 1999, and as a member of the examinations board at the same institution in 
1996. Without an organizational chart or other evidence explaining how the above roles fit within the 
hierarchy of the university and information regarding whether the petitioner maintained these roles 
closer to the date the petition was filed, we cannot determine whether the petitioner 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 have 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 
gynecologist and obstetrician 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 gynecologist and obstetrician, 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)(l)(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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.