dismissed EB-1A Case: Ophthalmology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 1820463 7 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a surgical ophthalmologist, 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 the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. A petitioner can either demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award), or provide 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 qualifying awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a 
petitioner to submit comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a surgical ophthalmologist. At the time of filing, she was emplord as the Associate 
Chief Physician for the Department of Ophthalmology at the I I Hospital,__ _ ___,l University 
in China. Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Initially, the Petitioner claimed that she meets seven of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser Awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material in major trade publications or other major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in his field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations; and 
• (ix), High salary. 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner only fulfilled two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria relating to judging the work of others and authorship of scholarly articles. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that she meets three additional criteria relating to her receipt of lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor, original 
contributions of major significance to her field, and her leading or critical role for organizations having 
a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner has not pursued her initial claim that she meets the criteria 
related to memberships in associations in the field that require outstanding achievements of their 
members (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) or that she commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services in relation to others in the field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)). Therefore, we 
deem these issues to be waived and will not address these criteria in this decision. See, e.g., Matter of 
M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director's conclusion regarding 
her participation as a judge of the work of others, as the record the demonstrates that the Petitioner 
performed peer review for a number of scholarly journals. The record also demonstrates the 
Petitioner's authorship of numerous scholarly articles in the medical field. However, as discussed 
below, we find that she does not meet the requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she, rather than her employer, is 
the recipient of prizes or awards that are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 1 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. 2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the awards documented in the record 
are nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that she received two nationally regarded awards for excellence in her field. She asserts 
that the evidence she submitted in support of the petition and in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE) included detailed descriptions of the awards and the processes for granting them, and 
was therefore sufficient to establish that all elements of the criterion were satisfied. 
The Petitioner presented evidenc~onstrating that she won the l !Medical Science & 
Technology Award" (2nd prize) inl__J2006, accompanied by evidence demonstrating that the award 
recognizes the city I ~s medical and health industry. The Director determined that because 
the award was limited to those within the city I I the award was not nationally or 
internationally recognized. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional evidence, 
including a document titled "Implementing rules for incentive regulation ofl I Medical Science 
and Technology Award." In the document's "Scope of Declaration," it states that "[a]ll medical 
schools and all levels of health system, various medical, scientific research and prevention institutes 
in this city are eligible to apply for th~ I Medical Science & Technology Award." (Emphasis 
added). The Director concluded that this document forthe~rated that the scope of the award 
was limited to the institutions operating within the city ofL___J and therefore did not satisfy the 
plain language of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that although eligibility for this award is limited to individuals or 
institutions inl l it does not mean that the award is not nationally recognized. The Petitioner 
notes that I fTs one of China's most prestigious cities, and that thel I Medical 
Association, who awards the prize, is a "nationally prestigious medical association." She farther notes 
that because only 15-20 prizes for 2nd place are awarded annually, and they are accompanied by a 
1 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing 
guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy the regulat01y criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). 
2 Id. 
3 
cash award of RMB 10,000, it is more likely than not that her receipt of this award satisfies this 
criterion. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that this 
award is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence, as eligibility appears to be 
limited to individuals and companies operating in the city of~ While we acknowledge the 
Petitioner's assertions that the awarding entity and the city ol______..,_J are well respected in China, 
the award is not accompanied by evidence of the national or international recognition associated with 
it, or evidence that the Petitioner received national or international recognition as a recipient of this 
2nd place award. Therefore, although the Petitioner established that she was one of approximately 20 
recipients of the 2nd place I I Medical Science & Technology A ward" in 2006, the evidence 
submitted does not establish that this honor qualifies as a nationally or internationally recognized 
award or prize for excellence in her field. 
The Petitioner also claimed receipt of a certificate issued by the Science and Technology Commission 
o~ I of Achievement for I I 
in( I 2005. The certificate states, 'The certificate is hereb_.l.....L>......,........._....,,,__conform that the science and 
technological achievements you have participated in are science and technological 
achievements upon review." It identifies the "Work Unit" as~----------~ ffiliated 
tol I Medical University, and under a section titled "Main Contribution" it identifies 
the Petitioner as "the 9th contributor." The Director found this certificate insufficient to satisfy this 
criterion, as the certificate did not indicate that the Petitioner was awarded a prize or award outside of 
the city o~ lor its municipality. The Director farther noted that the certificate was issued in 
conjunction with a national fonding initiative. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that this certificate, which she refers to as th~ I Medical 
Science & Technology Achievement! ~' "qualifies as a nationally recognized prize for 
excellence in the Petitioner's field of endeavor," noting that the program issuing the certificate is a 
"major Chinese national initiative dedicate[ d] to promoting important national interests via 
cutting-edge scientific research achievements." The Petitioner rovides a basic overview of the0 
I I referred to formally as the~----------------------- which 
appears to provide fonding to improve research in a variety of scientific fields. 
Here, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's receipt of this certificate 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize in his field of endeavor. 
Moreover, the minimal evidence submitted suggests that the Petitioner's receipt of this certificate may 
indicate her receipt of a research grant or research fonding from thel !principally designed 
to fond her future research, and not to honor or recognize her past achievements. Absent additional 
evidence regarding the nature of this certificate, we cannot determine whether her receipt of this 
certificate constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in her 
field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
4 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that 
not only have they made original contributions but that those contributions have been of major 
significance in the field. 3 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. Here, the Petitioner claims that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field as evidenced by her published research, citation record, 
patents, and a letter of recommendation from an expert in the field. 
The Petitioner provides evidence demonstrating that she published articles in journals such as the 
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Ophthalmology, and Tissue Engineering (Part A), and 
asserts that the journal rankings, as well as each journal's impact factor, are elements that should 
contribute to her satisfying this criterion's requirements. The Petitioner, however, has not established 
that publication of articles in highly ranked or popular journals inevitably demonstrates that the field 
considers the research and work to be an original contribution of major significance. Moreover, a 
publication that bears a high ranking or impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate; it 
does not show an author's influence or the impact of research on the field or that every article published 
in a highly ranked journal automatically indicates a contribution of major significance. Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that publication in a popular or highly ranked journal alone demonstrates 
a contribution of major significance in the field. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian, 580 
F.3d at 1036, affd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that her published papers and articles had been cited 60 times at 
the time of filing. 4 This criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify her 
original contributions and explain why they are of major significance. The Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how her cumulative number of citations represents contributions of major significance in 
the field. Moreover, aggregate citation figures tend to reflect a petitioner's overall publication record 
rather than identifying which research the field considers to be majorly significant. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence from Google Scholar reflecting that her three highest cited articles 
received 31, 9 and 9 citations, respectively. 5 Once again, this criterion requires the Petitioner to 
establish that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Generally, 
citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research or written 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing 
guidance on the review of evidence submitted to satisfy the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)) (stating that 
although funded and published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of 
major significance). 
4 In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided an updated citation record demonstrating additional citations to her work 
subsequent to the filing of the petition. The additional citations to articles after the initial filing will not be considered. 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time 
of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
5 The Petitioner did not specify how many citations, if any, for each of her articles contained self-citations. 
5 
work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the citations for any of her published 
papers or articles are commensurate with contributions of major significance. The Petitioner did not 
articulate the significance or relevance of the citations to her articles. For example, she did not 
demonstrate that these citations are unusually high in her field or how they compare to other articles 
that the field views as having been majorly significant. We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions, 
both before the Director and again on appeal, that her citation statistics rank her as one of the top 1,140 
scientists and physicians publishing in Ophthalmology, and that she ranks in the top 0.54% of cited 
physicians given the fact that there are approximately 210,730 ophthalmologists worldwide. The issue 
here, however, is how, or the extent to which, the Petitioner's work impacted the work of those 
researchers that cited her publications. Although her citations and perceived ranking are indicative 
that her research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not establish that her 
citation numbers to her individual articles represent majorly significant contributions in the field. 6 
Further, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted examples of articles which cited to her 
work. 7 A review of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's research 
in the overall field beyond the authors who cited to her work. 8 For example, the Petitioner provided 
a co of an article titled 
' in which the authors ~------------------------------~ cited one of her articles. 9 However, the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written 
work from the other cited papers. 10 The article does not indicate that the Petitioner's article is 
authoritative or otherwise viewed as being majorly significant in the field, nor does it reflect that the 
authors found the Petitioner's work of such value that they discuss her work extensively. Instead, the 
article briefly cites to her work when discussing an examrle of ho~ I have been used 
as substitutes for I _ during the development of bioengineered 
I I The Petitioner has not shown that her published articles through citations rise to a 
level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Moreover, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that one 
above-referenced article isl I, Co-Director ofth't,..__...,-------,_ ____ _J 
Center of Excellence. The Petitioner submits a professional profile forL____,.--- .......... ""-'-+ 
accomplishments in the field, and asserts that the fact that her work was cited b.1~----~ indicates 
that that her work "has been recognized as important and noteworthy by at least one of the world's 
leading researchers in the field." Again, although the above article co-authored byl I did 
cite to one of the Petitioner's articles, it does not indicate that the Petitioner's work is authoritative or 
otherwise viewed as being majorly significant in the field. Researchers throughout a given field may 
cite other published works without the cited work being notably influential or serving as a foundational 
basis for their own work. The fact that the Petitioner performed moderately valuable research and 
6 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals 
that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or entries (particularly a 
goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the 
significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
7 Although she notes that her work has been cited by researchers around the world, the Petitioner did not establish how 
being cited by international researchers shows that her research is considered to be majorly significant. 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra. at F.2(B)(2); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that 
a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
9 Although we discuss an example article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 The paper's citation index lists a total of 45 citations to various sources. 
6 
received a reference to her work does not inherently demonstrate a contribution of major significance 
to the field, as this activity is inherent to the Petitioner's occupation. 
The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's patents, but determined that there was no evidence 
submitted to determine that they have garnered widespread commentary or use. On appeal, the 
Petitioner emphasizes that the patents, and associated research, have been cited 31 times by scholars 
from all over the world, and further notes that her patented 1 I ad ! tube used during 
operations to flushl la surgical region an~ ~ as required, has also been cited 
by a subsequent patented technology in the field. She claims that these citations to her patents and 
associated research demonstrate that her contributions have been substantially relied on by subsequent 
research in the field, and thus demonstrate that they constitute original contributions of major 
significance in the field as contemplated by this criterion . 
In general, a patent recognizes the originality of an invention or idea but does not necessarily establish 
a contribution of major significance in the field. Although the Petitioner argues that her 
groundbreaking patented research was selected for publication by a premier journal and has been 
widely cited, she did not demonstrate how the patents already qualify as contributions of major 
significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts . The record, for example, does not 
reflect that her patents resulted in widespread usage or influenced the field of ophthalmology in a 
majorly, significant manner. Here, the significant nature of her patents has yet to be determined. 
Finally, the Petitioner relies on a testimonial froml !s, Professor of 
Clinical Ophthalmology at the University ofl l which she 
claims attests to her majorly significant contributions. In general, the letter recounts the Petitioner's 
research and findings, indicates their publications in journals, and points to the citations of her work 
by others. Although it reflects the novelty of her work , it does not sufficiently articulate how her 
research and findings have been considered of such importance and how their im act on the field rises 
to the level of major significance required by this criterion. For instance stated that the 
Petitioner's work in identifying! I targets fo .._ ___________ _,injury resulted 
m a pa er that was cited nine times by "several foreign experts inclusive of those from the USA." 
While noted that this research "has furthered the study and treatment in clinical 
especially in the U.S.A.," he did not offer any examples of further ---..,......,-.,....,...-----,--.,.,....... research in this area or describe how the Petitioner's work in this area has significantly influenced the 
field . Similarl whil claimed that the Petitioner "is the expert of the diagnosis and 
treatment o L---------r-------,. ___ _J surgery, especially specializing in the 
postoperative reconstruction o ...._ _____ __,tumors," he did not supplement his letter with 
specific examples corroborating this statement or otherwise showing how the Petitioner impacted the 
field in a significant way. 
Furthermore, the letter speculates generally on the potential influence of the Petitioner's work and 
proposes that she will have an impact at some undefined point in the future. I I opined that 
if the Petitioner one day "has the opportunity to enter the USA, she definitely will make good use of 
her experience and proficiency to enhance the medical standard whether in the research institutes or 
in the medical schools." He did not elaborate or explain how her research to date has been applied in 
the field, and did not further discuss whether the Petitioner's research has affected previous 
procedures, let alone actual implementation in the field . While the letter shows promise in the 
7 
Petitioner's work, it does not establish how her work already qualifies as a contribution of major 
significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts. The significant nature of her work 
has yet to be determined or measured. 
Here, the testimonial letter from I I does not contain specific, detailed information 
explaining the unusual influence or high impact the Petitioner's research or work has had on the overall 
field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to 
the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 11 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics 
and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 12 USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must satisfy three elements: that her role was (1) leading or 
critical; (2) that such role was for an organization or establishment; and (3) that the organization or 
establishment has a distinguished reputation. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the 
overall organizational hierarchy and through the role's matching duties. A critical role should be 
apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
Petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization 
or establishment as a whole. For the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate that she meets the requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner asserts that her role as the Associate Chief Physician for the Department of 
Ophthalmology at the I I Hos pi tall I University in China was leading or critical for 
that organization. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner initially submitted an employment 
verification from the hospital affirming her position and stating that she had been employed by the 
hospital since July 2007, along with a hospital organizational chart. She also supplemented the record 
with evidence of her participation in volunteer clinics and trainings as well as various presentations. 
Additionally, she submitted evidence in support of the claimed distinguished reputation of the hospital. 
The Director found the initial evidence insufficient, and issued an RFE requesting additional evidence 
in the form of letters from the Petitioner's current or former employers or trainers with personal 
knowledge of the significance of her leading or critical role, as well as evidence to assist in determining 
whether the organizations or establishments for which the Petitioner claimed to have performed a 
leading or critical role have distinguished reputations. In response, the Petitioner submitted a 
"Certificate" from the hospital dated August 5, 2020, which provided a general overview of her 
position. The Petitioner also submitted an organizational chart for the hospital and two documents 
11 See 6 USCTS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). 
12 Id; see also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
8 
titled "Certificate from Joint Conference Office for Standardized Residency Training ofl~--~ 
and "Notice of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission on the Issuance of the 
Measures for the Standardized Training of Resident Doctors inl I 
The Director found the Petitioner's evidence insufficient to satisfy this criterion. In denying the 
petition, the Director declined to acknowledge the certificate issued by the hospital, as it post-dated 
the filing of the petition. The Director determined that t~e certificate issued by the Joint Conference 
Office for Standardized Residency Training of._ ____ _.]which indicated that the Petj~cmy served as 
an examiner for the completion of the standardized training of resident doctors inl~----- ~_from April 
2014 to April 2017, and the notice of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission on the 
Issuance of the Measures for the Standardized Training of Resident Doctors irj O I lacked 
sufficient detail to show that her role was leading or critical. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's determinations regarding the deficiencies in 
the certificate issued by the Joint Conference Office for Standardized Residency Training ofl I 
or the notice of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission on the Issuance of the 
Measures for the Standardized Training of Resident Doctors inl I Rather, she challenges the 
Director's failure to consider the certificate issued by th~ I Hospital I I university, 
arguing that it should have been considered as the content of the document discusses the Petitioner's 
employment history and role at the hospital. We agree that the document warrants consideration under 
this criterion; however, as discussed below, it is insufficient to demonstrate that she performed in a 
leading or critical role for the hospital. 13 
Preliminarily, we note that both the certificate and the organizational chart from the hospital are not 
signed by an individual claiming personal knowledge of her role; rather, both documents are merely 
stamped with the hospital seal. See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(g)(l) (providing that evidence of experience shall 
consist of letters from the employer). As a result, we are unable to determine from whom the 
information was provided, and to what extent the writer was familiar with the Petitioner's role and 
associated duties at the hospital. There is no indication that the information contained in these 
documents reflects firsthand knowledge of an employer or trainer familiar with the Petitioner's role at 
her current employer. 
Moreover, this certificate did not provide sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's role at thel I 
I IHospita~ I University. It states simply that she hegan her emnlo]ment with the hospital 
in 2007, served as a visiting scholar at the University ofi~ ______ __. in from 2014 - 2015, 
and is currently the "Deputy Chief Physician of the Department of Ophthalmology and Ocular 
Oncology." The certificate did not indicate where the Petitioner's role fit within the overall hierarchy 
of thd I Hospital o~ I University, so as to demonstrate that it was a "leading" position 
within the organization. Moreover, the organizational chart submitted by the Petitioner does little to 
clarify her position within the organization's hierarchy, as it lists the Petitioner's position several tiers 
below the hospital's President and general departments. Specifically, her position is placed under the 
13 We exercise de novo review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and discretion. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). This means that we look at the record anew and are not required to defer to findings made in the initial 
decision. Furthermore, our decision may address new issues that were not raised or resolved in the prior decision. 
9 
'---,,----------------'Department, which appears to be a sub-department of the 
Department of Oncology. 
Furthermore, while the certificate indicates that the Petitioner is involved in the coordination of clinical 
and administrative affairs for 17 5 ophthalmologists and is in charge of the medical education and 
research of the Department of Orbital and Ocular Oncology, she has not provided evidence sufficient 
to show that these duties and responsibilities were critical for the I I Hospital I I 
University as a whole. The submitted documentation, therefore, does not establish that the Petitioner's 
role was "leading" based on her title, placement in the organization, or her duties, nor does the 
Petitioner provide information sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's duties and responsibilities 
were of significant importance to the organization, to the extent that her role was deemed critical. 
Additionally, we note that the certificate identifies her position as the "Deputy Chief Physician of the 
Department of Ophthalmology and Ocular Oncology," in contrast to the organizational chart (and the 
Petitioner's own assertions) which indicate that she is currently the "Associate Chief Physician of the 
Department of Clinical Treatment Technology." The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the 
record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Moreover, both the certificate and the organizational chart indicate that she currently holds the 
respective positions. Because this criterion requires evidence that she "has performed" in a leading or 
critical role in the past, we cannot determine whether she has satisfied the plain language of this 
criterion absent evidence confirming the date of her appointment to the claimed position and/or the 
length of time she has spent in this role. This evidentiary deficiency, coupled with the discrepancy 
with her job titles, farther precludes a determination that she has performed in a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 14 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets 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 
14 We acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of evidence in support of the assertion that thd I HospitalO 
~-~!University is a organization with a distinguished reputation, including an excerpt of a document titled "Best Eye 
Hospital: Top 100 Most Influential Ophthalmology Hospitals in 2016 (with list)" from the website www.askCI.com, a 
~ut froml l's Department of Ophthalmology website, a U.S. News & World Report article on 
l___J University, and an excerpt from an article titled "Honor rolls of best hospitals in China released" published in the 
Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy in! 12017. As the Petitioner has not established that she 
performed in a leading or critical role, further analysis of the reputation of the hospital serves no meaningful purpose. 
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 her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. 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 her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11