dismissed EB-1A Case: Obstetrics And Gynecology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6081680 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 14, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology , seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those 
who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
submitted evidence that satisfies three or more of the initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, 
the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate his sustained national or international acclaim or that 
he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that the Director did 
not consider all of the submitted evidence or adequately explain why the evidence was insufficient to 
establish his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. He received his Bachelor of 
Medicine and Doctor of Medicine degrees froml !university Health Science Center in 2006 and 
2009, respectively. At the time of frng inlMay 2018, he was employed as an attending physician at 
the Reproductive Medical Center of University! I Hospital inl I China. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met four of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for published material in 
professional publications or major media under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and scholarly articles under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record reflects that the Petitioner peer reviewed at least one manuscript for the Chinese Medical 
Journal. In addition, he authored scholarly articles published in journals such as Journal of Practical 
Obstetrics & Gynecology, Reproduction and Contraception, and International Journal of Gynecology 
and Obstetrics. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and 
scholarly articles criteria. However, for the reasons discussed below, we do not concur with the 
Director's finding that the Petitioner satisfied the published materials and original contributions 
criteria. Further, we agree with the Director's determination that although the Petitioner initially 
claimed to meet the criteria relating to lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
2 
and membership in an association requiring outstanding achievements of its members, he did not 
submit sufficient evidence to show that he met either of these criteria. Accordingly, after reviewing 
all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner meets only two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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 initirlly claimed eligibility under this criterion based on: two awards that he received 
from his employer University! I Hospital); student awards from his university I I 
University) including a scholarship award, merit student awards, and doctoral student awards; and an 
award from the China National I I, which he received in 2000 when he was a high 
school student. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner emphasized that the 
following are qualifying awards: 1 
• 2013 Second Prize of Academic Presentation in Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of 
I !University 
• 2000 First Prize, China National I~-----~ 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's prizes or awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors. 3 
With respect to the Petitioner's second prize in the I O !university academic presentation 
competition ( also referred to as the "Youth Thesis Report Summit") he stated that the competition was 
open to physicians at 24 university-affiliated hospitals. The Petitioner explained that each hospital 
had its own competition, with the winning doctor( s) from each obstetrics and gynecology department 
chosen to represent his or her hospital for the final round. Finally, he stated that 17 doctors presented 
their papers in the final competition, and a panel of experts determined the winners of one first prize, 
two second prizes, and three third prizes. Although the Petitioner emphasized that some of the 
competing doctors were from hospitals with highly ranked obstetrics and gynecology departments, the 
evidence did not establish that this prize is a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence. Rather, the submitted evidence indicates that the competition was limited to participants 
employed within I !University's hospital network and entry appears to have been further 
restricted to younger physicians. 
1 The Petitioner did not pursue his initial claim that the remainder of the referenced awards meet this criterion. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (noting that an award limited to competitors from a single 
institution, for example, may have little national or international significance). 
3 Id. 
3 
The Petitioner submitted an article titled I I 
I I which was published in Health News in I 12013. While the article reports on the 'l I 
University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Forum and Youth Papers Conference" in which 
the Petitioner participated and includes an excerpt of a paper attributed to him, it does not state that he 
won an award or prize at the conference. The Health News article mentions that the "youth paper 
report meeting" is held every year "to encourage young people to be motivated and enterprising." This 
~rticle does not support the Petitioner's claim that the second prize award he received from 
L___JUniversity is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his 
field. The only other submitted media coverage for this conference was an article related to the 2014 
annual conference; however, the Petitioner does not claim that he participated in the competition in 
that year. 
With respect to the China National I I the Petitioner submitted a "prize certificate" 
stating that he won "First Prize of I Province" in this competition. This certificate does not 
support the Petitioner's claim that he won first prize at the national-level competition. In fact, a 
statement from the I I High School Students Competition Office indicates that 20 first prize awards 
are given at the provincial level. While it appears that the competition drew from a field of highly 
talented high school students, the record does not establish that the Petitioner's first prize award in a 
regional contest was a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in his field of 
endeavor. In addition, an award limited to participants of a certain age or those with student status 
may be a relevant factor in determining whether the overall field acknowledges it for excellence. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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 initially claimed that he meets this criterion based on his membership in the Chinese 
Medical Association (CMA). He explained that membership requires "evidence that you are an active 
practicing medical doctor in good standing." The Petitioner submitted a screenshot from the CMA's 
website which provides general information regarding the purpose of the organization and indicates 
that it is a non-profit association for medical professionals and technologists with 500,000 members. 
He did not document his CMA membership or provide any additional evidence regarding the CMA's 
membership requirements. However, based on the Petitioner's own statements, membership in the 
CMA appears to be granted to any individuals who are able to demonstrate that they are practicing 
physicians in good standing. Therefore, the Petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate that he 
is a member of an association that requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines. This criterion has not been met. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field/or 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) 
4 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion; however, we disagree and will withdraw 
that finding. 
The Petitioner submitted the aforementioned on-line article from Health News (jkb.com.cn) in support 
of this criterion. As noted above, the article reports on thel !University Department of Obstetrics 
and Gynecology Forum and Youth Papers Conference. The article notes that "three papers on 
reproductive medicine related to this report are published, and experts are invited to comment." It 
includes excerpts from three papers presented at the conference, including the Petitioner's paper, as 
well as a section in which a professor atl IUniversityl Is Hospital comments on the research 
presented. However, while the article mentions the Petitioner as the author of the paper titled 
.__ _________________ __.' it does not otherwise mention him. For this reason, 
we cannot conclude that the article is "about" the Petitioner as required by the plain language of the 
regulation. 
Further, the Petitioner did not support his claim that Health News can be classified as a professional 
or major trade publication or other major medium. Initially, the Petitioner submitted information from 
the publication which describe it as a "health profession newspaper" serving "all levels of health 
administration personnel, medical and health workers and the general public." Later, in response to a 
request for evidence, the Petitioner described it as a "leading newspaper" ranked among China's top 
100 newspapers. The Petitioner provided an article from a Chinese government website 
(www.gapp.gov.cn) which lists the "Top 100 Newspapers and Periodicals" for 2018. While Health 
News is included among the top 100 newspapers (which are listed in no particular order), the article 
does not identify the criteria for inclusion on the list and we cannot determine based on the evidence 
submitted that this publication's website qualifies as major media based on its circulation or 
distribution relative to other online Chinese publications. We note that the record reflects that the 
same Chinese government agency published a separate top 100 list for scientific journals, and therefore 
we cannot determine that Health News should be classified, in the alternative, as a professional 
publication. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that his professional profile is included on the Chinese website 
Good Doctor (Haodf.com), which is described as a healthcare community platform that assists patients 
with finding doctors. He submitted samples of comments and reviews written by his patients, but 
these reviews on an Internet healthcare platform do not meet the plain language of this criterion, which 
requires published materials about the Petitioner and his work in the field published in professional or 
other major trade publications or other major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a print article titled 
I I' published by Xishuangbanna Daily 
newspaper in 201 7. The article identifies the Petitioner as one of four doctors from his hospital who 
were to provide "medical technical support" at the I Is Hospital ofl I for a period 
of three months. The brief article mentions his educational background and medical specialty, but is 
not about him and his work in the field. Further, the limited information provided rerrding the 
I I Daily indicates that it is "an official newspaper of the I _ Prefecture 
Committee of the Communist Party of China." This evidence is insufficient to establish that this 
newspaper, which appears to be regional in nature, is considered major media in China. 
5 
The record also contains evidence that the Petitioner recorded a series of 33 "question and answer" 
videos on various topics in reproductive medicine for the online platform "Y oulai Doctor" 
(www.youlai.cn). The record reflects that these videos were first made available online on I I 
2018, subsequent to the filing of the petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Finally, the Petitioner states that he was invited to participate in a live broadcast on the Dudu Doctor 
website in 0201 7, in which he delivered a discussion regarding topics in reproductive health and 
participated in a question and answer session. The Petitioner indicates that the website "establishes a 
new way of connecting users and doctors to provide online medical and health services," and notes 
that 50,000 users attended the live broadcast. Even if we could consider this live broadcast to be 
published material about the Petitioner and his work in major media, we note that the Petitioner's 
participation in the broadcast is not sufficiently documented in the record. The Petitioner provided a 
screenshot from the website (www.duduyisheng.cn) confirming its existence, but the record does not 
contain supporting evidence corroborating the Petitioner's participation in the referenced live 
broadcast or evidence confirming the number of viewers. 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we find that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that satisfies 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Director found that this criterion had been satisfied, but did not identify the Petitioner's original 
contributions of major significance or otherwise explain this determination. In order to fulfill the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field.4 For example, a petitioner 
may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably 
impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
Because the record does not reflect that the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this criterion, we 
will withdraw the Director's finding. 
The Petitioner claimed in his initial cover letter that he made contributions of major significance 
relating tol I a diagnostic method that ~----------~ 
I ~ to examine the uterus and fallopian tubes" for the purpose of determining the 
presence of abnormalities and investigating the cause of infertility and miscarriages. He states that 
he has conducted "progressive research which includes a unique contribution to improvements ire=J 
techniques I I and diagnostic effectiveness of thee=]' Further 
the Petitioner states that he has "contributed major insights to the diagnosis and treatment of LJ 
tubal lesions," including participation in a research group that studied! I therapy for severe 
I !adhesions. Specifically, he notes that his research has allowed for early diagnosis of 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
6 
uncommon conditions .__ ____________________ ____., with positive post-
surgery results. He also identified and summarized three of his published articles associated with the 
I I and three articles relating to hisc=J tubal lesion research. The Petitioner maintains 
that his "research on reproductive medicine and minimally invasive surgery have made a significant 
impact in the medical community globally." 
This this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original contributions of major 
significance. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify his original contributions and explain 
why they are of major significance in the field. 5 Although the Petitioner provided recommendation 
letters from colleagues praising him for his research and clinical skills, the authors do not rovide 
~c examples of contributions that are indicative of major ~ignificrce. For exam le 
L__JChairman of the obstetrics and gynecology department a Universit ._____,..-~ Hospital, 
states that the Petitioner "has already had a meaningful impact on the medical profession," indicates 
that his contributions to reproductive medicine research are "important" and "significant," and notes 
that his "clinical research on reproductive medicine and minimally invasive surgery have made an 
important impact in the diagnosis and treatment ofl ~ubal lesions area." 
~----~l an honorary director of the OB/GYN department at the Petitioner's hospital, states that 
the Petitioner's I I infertility research "has promising prospects" and that his "novel 
research on I I therapy for severe I I adhesions is expected to bring revolutionary 
changes for the treatment" of the condition. He describes the Petitioner's research in this area as "an 
incredibly innovative discovery and a real advancement in this scientific field." Finally, another chief 
physician at I I University I I Hospital, I I states that the Petitioner's 
"progressive research includes a unique contribution to improvements i~ I technique I I 
.__ _________ ~ and diagnostic effectiveness of the I [" 1 I farther indicates 
that the Petitioner's research on the diagnosis and treatment of tubal lesions "led to additional 
discoveries which could lead to medical breakthroughs" and that his research has "made a significant 
impact in the medical community globally. 
The letters considered above, solicited from the Petitioner's colleagues atl IUniversid 1 
Hospital, primarily contain broad attestations of the significance of the Petitioner's research studies 
without providing specific examples of original contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 6 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. 7 USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 
1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The authors' assertions in the 
above-referenced letters do not explain how the Petitioner's research findings have been widely 
implemented or relied upon by others in the field, or explain how his research has already "made a 
significant impact in the medical community globally." Simply stating that the work is important or 
that it has potential to majorly impact the field in the future is not sufficient. Without additional detail 
explaining his accomplishments relating to new or innovative techniques or findings, the letters 
5 Although we do not discuss every letter submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
7 
discussed above do not establish that the Petitioner's research has had a demonstrable impact in his 
field commensurate with a contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner later submitted letters from two individuals who are employed outside of the OB/GYN 
~ment atl J Universit~ I Hospital. I O ! an associate professor atc=J 
l__JUniversity's Department of Radiology, states that the Petitioner "made numerous original and 
significant contributions to the field of Reprductive Medicine." I lbriefly summarizes the 
Petitioner's research in the areas of diagnostic techniques, "optimization of the I I 
I 
O ~ clinical application withl linjection system," and 
ltubal lesions. I I maintains that the Petitioner's work "has influenced the field of 
Reproductive Medicine throughout China," noting that the referenced ,____---------.======. 
technology "is being widely used" at three specific hospitals. He describes it as a new I O I 
lltool that could be used "across the world." Whilel I makes a specific claim regarding 
tlieniipact of the Petitioner's research, it is unclear how he became aware of the use of the I I I I technology at specific Chinese hospitals and he does not explain the source of his 
information. The record does not, for example, contain corroborating evidence from the hospitals 
which are claimed to have implemented the Petitioner's techniques. Further, although! I 
indicates the potential for the Petitioner's 'I ~echnique to impact the broader field, 
there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that it has already made such an impact. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted two letters from I l an associate physician at 
I ~ Hospital. I l explains that the Petitioner served as a visiting 
physician to the OB/GYN department at her hospital in November 2017 and states that his guidance 
during that time improved the level of medical services provided by the department. She also 
references three of the Petitioner's published articles, noting that her department "uses these studies 
as guides for our own clinical research and practice." In additionJ I notes that several hospitals 
in China use the~-------,,----------.,,---~technology, and indicates that the Petitioner's 
work "has made a significant impact on the field of gynecology in China and has led other medical 
professionals to new discoveries and major breakthroughs in the reproductive science field." Finally, 
I I states that the Petitioner has influenced the field "through China and several other countries 
including Germany, Austria, Brazil, Israel, Spain, Turkey and the U.S." Overall, whilel Is 
statements tend to corroborate that the Petitioner has provided guidance regarding diagnostic 
techniques that has reached beyond the boundaries of the specific hospital where he works, they are 
insufficient to support a finding that his research has remarkably influenced or impacted the field of 
reproductive medicine. For example, simply alluding to unidentified "medical breakthroughs" that 
stemmed from the Petitioner's research is not sufficient to establish the major significance of his 
contributions. The expert opinion evidence reviewed in its totality does not does not establish how 
the Petitioner has already made a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than generally 
discussing the prospective, potential impacts of his research. 
In addition to the submitted expert opinion letters, the Petitioner references his overall citation record, 
provides copies of articles that include what he considers to be notable citations to his work, and 
submits rankings of institutions whose researchers cited his published work. 
The Petitioner has provided copies of approximately 16 published journal articles authored by him, 
but has not submitted his complete publication and citation record. He initially identified three articles 
8 
as being specifically relevant to his original contributions in the area ofl !methods: a 
2015 article in the Journal of Practical Obstetrics and Gynecology, a 2014 article published in 
Reproduction & Contraception, and a 2011 article published in Chinese Journal of Family Pla~ 
Similarly, he identified two journal articles in discussing his original contributions relating t<L__j 
tubal lesions research: a 2015 article published in the International Journal of Gynecology and 
Obstetrics, and a 2018 article published in Archives Gynecology and Obstetrics. However, the 
Petitioner did not explain how any of the referenced articles have been deemed to signify an original 
contribution of major significance, and the referenced expert opinion letters did not discuss these 
individual publications and their impact within the field. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner identified his two "top cited" articles 
as a 2010 article published in Journal of Practical Obstetrics and Gynecology and a 2012 article 
published in Chinese Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8 but did not explain how the 
noted citation rates demonstrate that his research was considered to be an original scientific 
contribution of major significance. Rather, a review of the submitted articles that reference the 
Petitioner's research does not show the significance of his contributions to the overall field beyond 
the authors who cited to his work. 
For instance, the Petitioner provided an article entitled 
.__ ________ _. published in the Chinese Journal of New Clinical Medicine in 2016, in which 
the authors cited to the article that he claimed is his second most-cited. 9 However, the article does not 
distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from that of the other 27 cited papers or support 
his claim that his research has had a major impact on other researchers. In fact, the authors' citations 
indicate that the Petitioner's research group was one of four groups who have confirmed that a certain 
.__ __________ __. Treatment is effective for treating a condition known as CSP. This 
evidence confirms that others, in the United States and abroad, were able to build upon the Petitioner's 
work and apply it to their own research. But it does not show that the impact of his work on the overall 
field ofreproductive medicine rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance. The 
fact that the Petitioner has published articles that other researchers have referenced is not, by itself: 
indicative of a contribution of major significance. Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
We acknowledge, however, that a petitioner may present evidence that his articles "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 [his] work as authoritative in the field, may be probative 
of the significance of [his] contributions to the field of endeavor." 10 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a spreadsheet that is intended to rank 2,666 Chinese physicians who 
work at "ranked hospitals" and whose specialty is "reproductive medicine." 11 The Petitioner maintains 
that his work is cited "more than other professionals in his field" as his total number of citations ranks 
8 The Petitioner stated that these articles had 38 and 36 citations, respectively, as of October 2018, but did not provide the 
source of these citation statistics. 
9 Although we discuss a sample article referencing the Petitioner's work, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
11 The Petitioner indicates that the spreadsheet was compiled by using a listing of physicians located at www.haodfcom 
and citation records found on "the famous Chinese academic search platforms CNKI, Baidu and Google Scholar." 
9 
96th among this group and places him "in the top 3.6%" of the best OB/GYN physicians in China. 
Similarly, the Petitioner claims his average citation rate per published work places him in the top 1.8% 
of reproductive medicine physicians in China. However, figures that summarize citations to the 
Petitioner's entire body of published work do not demonstrate that any specific work of his is so widely 
cited and relied upon that it is considered to have made a major impact in the field of cardiology. 
Comparison of the Petitioner's cumulative citations to others in the field is often more appropriate in 
determining whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates 
that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits 
determination. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's claim on appeal that his work is "cited significantly more often" in 
the categories of "Endometriosis Infertility," "Hysterosaplingography," and "Uterine Artery 
Embolization and Hysteroscopy." Specifically, the Petitioner indicates that "according to Baidu 
Scholar (Chinese Google Scholar)," his articles are ranked second, fourth and first, respectively, 
among published articles in these sub-fields. The Petitioner provided only partially translated 
printouts from xueshu.baidu.com with what appear to be partial search results. As a result we cannot 
determine based on this evidence what search parameter was used, which limits the probative value of 
the submitted information. Even if the citations to individual articles published by the Petitioner were 
sufficiently documented, a relatively high citation rate for a given article, without more, would not 
establish that the published research was deemed an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. The Petitioner has not demonstrated, as he asserts, that any of the articles he characterizes as 
highly cited resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the field. While the Petitioner 
submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons 
already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any of the Petitioner's research findings, 
individually or collectively, have remarkably impacted or influenced his field. 
Although the Petitioner consistently claims that his "medical research and advances have greatly 
contributed to the reproductive medical field," these claims are not adequately supported by the 
submitted recommendation letters or citation evidence. Considered together, the evidence consisting of 
the citations to the Petitioner's published findings and the reference letters from his fellow obstetrics and 
gynecology physicians establishes that the Petitioner has been a productive researcher, and that his 
published data and findings have been relied upon by others in their own research, and perhaps impacted 
local diagnostic practices in certain Chinese hospitals. It does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
made an original contribution of major significance in the field ofreproductive medicine. Therefore, he 
has not met this criterion. 
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 the top. USCIS has long held 
10 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his 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. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
11