dismissed EB-1A Case: Orthopaedic Surgery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19496791 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 24, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an orthopaedic scholar, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he did not show his sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
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 novo 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 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); 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 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to dete1mine whether the factto be proven is probably 
true." MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he 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 determined that the Petitioner met four of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria relating to awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show that he garnered 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise, demonstrating that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field. On appeal, we will review the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Director concluded that the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate 
whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,EvaluationofEvidenceSubmittedwith Ce1tainFormI-l 40Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator ·s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/H1MUPolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extra ordinary ability under section 2 03(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act). 
2 
international acclaim, 2 that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze an individual's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in 
the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his 
eligibility. 
At initial filing, the Petitioner provided a statement indicating: 
For the past six years I have been actively involved in the study of Orthopaedic Surgery 
with a focus in sp01is medicine which includes the treatment ofl I disorders. 
Although medical school has a broadly focus curriculum I is an extremely 
competitive institution at which I was fortunate enough to be accepted. Since I 
matriculated, I have honed my studies in the field of sports medicine .... 
Furthermore my background, educational career, and research endeavors afforded me 
admission t School of Business at al I business school in the 
U.S., where I have been studying to earn my Master of Business Administration 
(MBA). This has further developed my leadership skills, knowledge of healthcare 
economics as well as the ability to improve the business and operational side of 
medicine especially as it relates to Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. I have been able to 
further the science as well as business of __ care in the U.S. with an eye towards 
both cost containment and meaningful patient care .... 
At the time of the initial filing of the petition, as indicated above, the Petitioner currently pursues an 
MBA degree atl land previously attended! for a bachelor of 
science degree. Moreover, the record reflects that the Petitioner presently serves as a preceptor for 
first year medical students at the School of Medicine atl land conducted an 
orthopaedic surgery clerkship a articipated as a research coordinator for sp01is medicine 
atl I General Hospital as part of his medical school training. Although the 
Director determined that the Petitioner has received awards, garnered published material about him, 
judged others, and authored scholarly articles, the record does not demonstrate that he enjoys a "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
In 2016 and 20 I 7, the Petitioner received scholarships from the Government 
of the Republic of 1 I The record contains a letter from president of the fund, 
stating that "[t]he aim of the Fund I I is to recognize talented, successful and diligent 
young people and provide them with the necessary assistance in achieving the above-average results 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictionary 's definition of "sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a longperiodoftime, 
and to persist in makinganeffort over a longperiodoftime). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USC IS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to d etermine e if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high lev e 1 of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
3 
in order to be the basis for the future social-economic development of the Republic ofl I In 
addition, the Government of the Republic of I awarded the Petitioner "The National Merit 
Order" for "the best young researcher of II cycles of studies" in 2018. 4 Here, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his scholarship and academic awards reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. Rather, the awards indicate 
recognition for financial assistance and academic pursuits and do not show that that his "achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the majorleague level do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of"extraordinary ability." 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). He has not established, for instance, 
that he competed against other accomplished orthopaedic scholars or how his scholarship and 
academic awards compare to other renowned orthopaedic scholars, showing that he "is one of that 
small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" rather than receiving 
academic awards to pursue an education. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Further, regarding media coverage, the Petitioner offered four items reflecting published material 
about him from 2014 - 201 7. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such press coverage, 
without any since 2017, is consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for 
this highly restrictive classification. See section 203 (b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner did 
not show how his overall media coverage is indicative of a level of success with being among that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting on him and his activities reflect 
a career of acclaimed work in the field. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59. The commentary for the 
proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 5 Here, the Petitioner's minimal 
media exposure does not meet this very high standard. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 6 In his capacity 
as a preceptor for first year medical students at he "[p]]rovides end of year evaluation of students 
relative to their achievement of the goals and objectives of thel lcourse." 7 Here, the 
Petitioner's recent judging experience involves evaluating the work of first year medical students 
rather than nationally or internationally renowned medical professionals. 
4 The Petitioner previously contended that he also made two presentations during the 2016 Annual Meeting of the 
I I Association ofNorth America; however, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received any prizes or 
a wards from these presentations, let alone nationally orintema tionally recognized prizes or a wards for excellence in the 
field. 
5 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 2. 
6 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoyin g sustained national or international acclaim). 
7 
See letter from
4 
Further, the Petitioner did not establish that these evaluations contribute to a finding that he has a 
career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required sustained national or international 
acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. He did not show, for 
example, how his limited experience in evaluating aspiring medical professionals compares to others 
at the very top of the field. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that he garnered wide 
attention from the field based on his evaluation work. Moreover, serving as a judge or evaluator does 
not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Cf., Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (stating that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the ''extraordinary ability" 
standard). Without evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
a consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, the Petitioner 
has not shown that his judging experience places him among that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automaticallyplace one at the top of the field. 8 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he authored 14 journal articles. However, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his publication record of 14 articles in a five-year timefrarne is 
consistent with having a career of acclaimed work, sustaining national or international acclaim, and 
being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59, section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did not show the 
significance of his authorships or how his publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the 
very top of the field. 
Moreover, the citation history orotherevidenceofthe influence ofhis written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other orthopaedic 
scholars have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 5 96 F. 3 d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting 
that his co-authored material has been cited 223 times, with his two highest cited articles receiving 
102 citations. 9 While the citation of his work shows that some in his field have referenced it, the 
Petitioner has not established that such citations are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in the 
field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the 
8 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra,at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative ofbeing one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
were in The lo ppcal, the 
Petitioner provides updated Research Gate and Google Scholar information. However, we will not consider this evidence 
for the first time onappealas it was not presented before the Director. SccMattcrofSoriano, 19 I&NDec. 764, 766(BIA 
1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to 
provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that 
"we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 5 3 3 (BIA 1988). Moreover, the updated information relates to events occurring a ft er the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the benefit have been satisfied from the timeoffiling and 
continuing through adjudication. Sec 8 C.F.R. § l 03.2(b )(1). 
5 
Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to his work represent attention at a 
level consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of his field. 10 See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not show that his presented material garnered him any national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Although he offered evidence showing 
that he presented two papers, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of his presentations 
or how they impacted the field consistent with a very high standard requiring the petitioner to submit 
more extensive documentation than that required for lesser classifications. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Beyond the four criteria determined by the Director that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional 
documentation in the record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates 
eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Here, for the reasons discussed below, we find 
that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim 
and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
In support of the significance of his contributions and roles, the Petitioner submitted a few 
recommendation letters that summarized his work as a student, as well as his accomplishments with 
I I andl I 11 For exampleJ I discussed the Petitioner's study in 
treating! I instability, and I indicated the Petitioner's implementation of 3D 
printing and its integration with I software. Although they praise the Petitioner's work, they 
do not contain sufficient information and explanation to show that he is viewed by the overall field, 
rather than by a solicited few, among the upper echelon or that he has garnered recognition on a 
national or international scale, consistent with being among the small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that he has made impactful or influential 
contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering the 
required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep.No. at 5 9 and section 20 3 (b )( 1 )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish how his roles withl I or resulted in 
widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew significant attention from the greater field, or that 
overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. See Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level athletes do 
not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamalll), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021)(determiningthat 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
10 The record contains citation statistics of selective orthopaedic surgeons from Research Gate. However, the majority of 
the sample has higher citations than the Petitioner, with one individual ga mering a !most 1,400 citations. 
11 On appeal, the Petitioner submits residency interview invitations; however, the documentation relates to events occurring 
after the initial filing and was not presented before the Director. Sec 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(l) and Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 
766; sec also Obaigbcna, 19 I&NDec. at533. 
6 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 23 7 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (findingthat"arguably one of the most famous baseball players inKoreanhist01y" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no 
one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, the record is insufficientto demonstrate 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of 
his field. See section 203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
7