dismissed EB-1A Case: Pathology

, i&ntiQing data deleted ab 
I 
prevent clearly unwanad 
invasion of personal priva~ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
pUBm COPY 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Lg(ln F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 11 53(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined generally that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. While the director's decision would have been bolstered by a 
discussion of the evidence as it relates to the specific regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3), we concur with the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not demonstrated 
his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. As will be apparent from our discussion below, 
counsel frequently presumes the petitioner's extraordinary ability in order to demonstrate that the 
petitioner meets a given criterion rather than explaining how the evidence submitted to meet a given 
criterion is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Counsel also inflates the 
significance of training programs that, while competitive among novices, are ultimately training 
programs that cannot demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim in the 
field. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898- 
9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise 
Page 3 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish 
that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of 
expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be 
addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifl the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a house staff 
physician and pathologist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualifj as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence 
that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on his receipt of a one-month 
Donald West King Fellowship at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) in January 2008, 
which allowed him to "expand his knowledge and skills at one of the leading institutes in the world for 
advancing [the] science of pathology." Counsel acknowledges that the petitioner served "under the 
tutelage" of another doctor during this fellowship. 
Counsel also relies on the petitioner's "opportunity to do an advanced training elective in cytology at 
Brigharn & Women's Hospital" where he "trained with" a Harvard professor. In addition, counsel notes 
that the petitioner was selected for an "advanced training" opportunity in Hematopathology at 
Massachusetts General Hospital. 
While counsel discussed the prestige of the above institutions, she did not explain how training 
opportunities or even regular jobs at prestigious institutions constitute awards or prizes. Finally, 
counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through his travel grants to attend scientific 
meetings. 
In support of the above assertions, the petitioner submitted a "Graduate Medical Education Trainee 
Agreement" hom the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center offering the petitioner a one- 
year position as a Fellow at Post Graduate Year 6 level beginning July 1, 2008. The petitioner signed 
the agreement as the "trainee." The petitioner also submitted a certificate from AFIP confirming the 
- 
petitioner's satisfactory completion of his one-month fellowship at that institution. 
 A separate 
electronic mail message from 
 Executive ~frector of the American ~e~i&y of 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
Pathology, advises that the petitioner's lodging would be covered during this fellowship in addition to a 
''meal stipend." 
The petitioner further submitted a letter from of Harvard Medical School 
confirming that the petitioner "was a rotating resident in cytopathology at the Brigham and Women's 
Hospital" in October 2007. explains that the petitioner "attended daily signouts, conferences, 
and tutorials, and reviewed teaching cases from our teaching slide-collection" during this time. Finally, 
raises the petitioner's enthusiasm and attitude and asserts that he was "genuinely out to learn 
and master cytopathology." does not suggest that this residency was an award or prize 
recognizing past excellence in cytopathology rather than an opportunity to learn cytopathology. 
Without explanation, the petitioner submitted announcements from a physician search and consulting 
firm addressed to the petitioner announcing available pathology positions. These announcements are 
not job offers, let alone prizes or awards recognizing excellence in pathology. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that his abstracts had been accepted for presentation at various 
meetings but no evidence that the petitioner received travel grants. Regardless, even assuming the 
petitioner did receive travel grants, the record lacks evidence that travel grants are nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence for which the most renowned members of the 
field compete rather than financial assistance to residents in order to allow them the opportunity of 
presenting their work with their more experienced colleagues. 
In light of the above, we are not persuaded that the petitioner's training and job opportunities or his 
alleged travel grants constitute nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence 
as a pathologist. Thus, the evidence falls far short of establishing that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner had been admitted "to a number of highly prestigious and selective 
societies" where memberships "are only awarded to those physician-scientists who have attained an 
extraordinary level of expertise unmatched by the vast majority of their colleagues." The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American Society for Clinical Pathology 
(ASCP) and the Massachusetts Medical Society as well as his "junior membership" in the College of 
American Pathologists (CAP). The bylaws for ASCP, submitted by the petitioner, reflects that eligible 
members include "(A) any person who is currently, or has been previously, certified by the Board of 
Registry in one or more categories or (B) any non-physician whose interests parallel those of the 
Society and who holds an academic doctorate acceptable to the Membership Commission (whether or 
not certified or currently registered by the Board of Registry." The "fact sheet" of information about 
CAP does not discuss the society's membership criteria for regular or "junior" members, but states that 
it is the "world's largest association composed exclusively of pathologists." CAP also has a large 
"Residents Forum" for medical residents. 
While the petitioner did not submit evidence of his membership in the United States and Canadian 
Academy of Pathology (USCAP), he did submit the bylaws of this academy. Even assuming the 
petitioner is a member, eligible members need only a medical doctor degree, four years of training or 
experience and sponsorship by two members. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the American Board of Pathology advising that the petitioner 
qualified for the combined Anatomic Pathology and Clinical Pathology examination. This qualification 
allows the petitioner to sit for the examination five times each before 2013. The record does not 
establish that this qualification to sit for an examination is an exclusive membership. 
We are not persuaded that education (required of every member of the petitioner's profession), a 
specific amount of experience2 or the sponsorship of current members are outstanding achievements. 
Thus, the evidence falls far short of meeting this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of speciJication for which classijication is sought. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner's "leadership appointments and clinical expertise is testament to his 
extraordinary abilities and standing in the field of pathology." Even if the petitioner had demonstrated 
leadership appointments, such appointments are best considered under the criterion that relates to 
leading or critical roles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(h)(3)(viii), addressed below. We are not 
persuaded that such appointments should be presumed to meet this criterion as well, which, according 
to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(3)(iv), requires explicit evidence that the petitioner has judged 
the work of others. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner ''judged" his subordinates, prospective employees and students. In 
addition, counsel asserted that the petitioner attended "Journal clubs" where he was responsible for 
"critically evaluating and scrutinizing scientific articles published in peer reviewed journals" and then 
presents these critiques. Counsel further asserted that the petitioner has performed "mock inspections" 
of clinical laboratory facilities and staff to assess readiness for CAP inspections. Finally, counsel 
asserted that the petitioner "has reviewed control slides for special stains to evaluate and judge the 
histo-technologist performed the stain in a satisfactory manner or not," requesting a repeat procedure 
from the tech where necessary. As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
Even ten years of experience is only potential partial evidence of eligibility for the lesser classification of 
exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; ~atter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The petitioner submits an electronic mail message from a second year fellow working on submitting a 
case of cryptococcal meningitis for the IDSA Fellows Day seeking help finding pictures of a specific 
stain. The message appears to be within the internal webmail service of Tufts, suggesting no 
recognition of the petitioner be ond the institution where he works. The petitioner also submitted a 
letter to the petitioner from Curriculum Coordinator at Tufts University, providing the 
petitioner with his room assignment for a lecture. Once again, this lecture is not evidence of the 
petitioner's recognition beyond the institution where he works. Another Tufts University internal 
webmail electronic mail message thanks the petitioner for making an "M&M" conference worthwhile 
and for his effort with the slides and reviewing the bone marrow biopsy during a case presentation. The 
petitioner provided a list of several lectures and presentations at Tufts Medical Center where he is 
employed. The petitioner also submitted copies of his Blood Bank Transfusion Services (BBTS) 
Journal Club presentation and evaluation (including the question "Is this something we should 
adopt?"), but no evidence of the scope of this club. The petitioner's list of presentations lists his Journal 
Club presentation on Hematopathology as a presentation at Tufts Medical Center for the Pathology 
Staff. Presentations at a local club at the petitioner's own institution designed to improve the 
institution's transfusion services do not demonstrate his national or international recognition. Finally, 
the petitioner submitted three reviews of pathology residence program candidates for the Tufts-New 
England Medical Center and a Mock CAP inspection form completed by the petitioner. 
The evidence to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim if that criterion is to have any meaning. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 
"9 (S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 "11 
(S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2005). We cannot conclude that the inherent duties of a first line supervisor or 
lecturer at a teaching hospital can serve to meet this criterion. The evidence submitted to meet this 
criterion is not suggestive of any recognition outside the institutions where the petitioner has worked. 
Thus, the evidence of record falls far short of meeting this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijkance in the field. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on the following: (1) his "rare" 
specialization in both anatomic and clinical pathology, (2) his ability to perform the "modem 
investigative technique" and "integral tool'' known as flow cytometry, (3) his "reputation as one of the 
most foremost experts in irnrnunohistochemistry" that distinguishes between different types of cancer 
cells on a slide, (4) his expertise in hematopathology, (5) his case study showing an enlarged lymph 
node was a rare form of lymphoma, (6) "mastery of many of the most complex procedures in 
pathology" and (7) his "rare and unique ability to diagnose pathologic conditions from a unique clinical 
perspective, which very few if any pathologists in the United States, can claim." As stated above, the 
Page 7 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
534 n.2; Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be both 
original and of major significance. To be considered "original," the petitioner must have contributed 
something new rather than merely have mastered an existing procedure, regardless of how complex 
that procedure may be. To be considered a contribution of major signzfzcance in the field of 
medicine, it can be expected that the results would have already demonstrably impacted the 
treatment of patients beyond the institutions where the petitioner has worked. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has presented three case studies which have been published as 
abstracts in pathology journals. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(vi) sets forth a separate 
criterion for published scholarly articles. We cannot conclude that evidence relating to that criterion is 
presumptive evidence to meet this separate criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that the petitioner meet at 
least three regulatory criteria. While the petitioner submitted materials about the journals in which the 
abstracts appeared, we will not presume the influence of an abstract fkom the journal in which it 
appeared. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's abstracts have been extensively cited or 
otherwise proven influential. 
The petitioner also submitted several reference letters. The opinions of experts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or 
international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. 
at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identi@ 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
Page 8 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
, a professor 
 Tufts University School of Medicine, asserts that he 
interacts daily with the petitioner. 
 recites the petitioner's credentials and asserts broadly 
that he is extraordinary. While 
 discusses the complex procedures the petitioner has 
mastered he does not explain how the petitioner's mastery of previously utilized techniques is 
"original." also does not provide a single example of how the petitioner's work has 
impacted the field as a whole. 
an assistant professor of pathology at Tufts University Medical School, asserts 
generally that the petitioner has "led many landmark research studies that have been published in the 
most notable medical journals." While we do not question sincerity, provides 
no explanation as to how these studies were "landmark" studies. For example, 
 does not 
provide examples of other independent hospitals that have changed their procedures based on the 
petitioner's studies or coverage of these studies in medical or general media. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). More specifically, discusses the petitioner's case study 
showing that primary renal lymphoma can be diagnosed on percutaneous needle biopsies and 
lymphoma involving the kidney should be suspected in renal failure patients with elevated serum 
immunoglobulin/cryoglobulin levels. While asserts that this study has had "a major 
impact on our current understanding of primary renal lymphomas and their early diagnosis by 
minimally invasive procedures," does not provide examples of independent hospitals who 
have incorporated this study into their guidelines, course curricula at independent universities listing 
the abstract of this study as required reading or equivalent examples of the impact of this study. 
an associate professor of pathology and ophthalmology at Tufts Medical Center 
provides a similar letter, making broad assertions about the petitioner's talent and notoriety without 
providing specific examples of how the field has been impacted by the petitioner's work beyond a 
single patient where the petitioner disagreed with the consensus and was proven correct. While we 
do not contest the significance of this example to the individual patient, additional evidence is 
required to demonstrate how this diagnosis has impacted the field as a whole. 
The record also includes a letter from , Director of Hematopathology at Allegheny 
General Hospital. is not an independent reference as his curriculum vitae confirms that he 
was a pathology resident at Tufts Medical Center at the same time as the petitioner. asserts 
that "many expert pathologists" at the USCAP conference remarked that the petitioner's renal 
lymphoma study would "significantly change the way" they would work up lymphoid infiltrate in 
kidney biopsies in the future. The record lacks letters from any of these "expert pathologists." The 
record contains a similar letter from another former Tufts Medical Center resident and Brigham & 
Women's Hospital fellow. 
Page 9 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from an independent reference who claims to have reviewed the 
petitioner's work and credentials in order to render an opinion. This reference, however, does not 
claim to have ever heard of the petitioner or his work prior to being requested for a reference letter. 
While the petitioner's ability to master complex techniques has clearly impressed his immediate 
circle of colleagues and earned him prestigious training opportunities, it does not follow that every 
pathologist who masters complex techniques and presents case studies of correct diagnoses has 
inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
In light of the above, the evidence falls far short of meeting th~s criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner "has demonstrated his excellence as one of the most heralded 
physician-scientists through his numerous academic projects and research presentations." We reiterate 
that the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
at 506. The petitioner submitted cases studies published as abstracts in Modern Pathology (based on a 
USCAP 2008 conference), Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine (based on a 2006 CAP 
conference) and the Journal of Clinical Apheresis (based on a 2006 American Society for Apheresis 
(ASFA) conference). The petitioner also provided a list of lectures and presentations given at Tufts 
Medical Center where he is employed. The petitioner also submitted two unpublished manuscripts. 
As stated above, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or at least 
consistent with national or international acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner's publications have been particularly influential, such as 
evidence that they are cited within the field. The petitioner has not even established that the quantity of 
his publications sets him apart from others in the field. For example, the petitioner submitted the 
curriculum vitae of one of his references, Within eight years of obtaining her medical degree 
(this petition was filed eight years after the petitioner received his medical degree), had 
authored seven full length articles, three book chapters and 19 abstracts. 
Even if we concluded that the petitioner's authorship of abstracts alone served to meet the plain 
language of this criterion, and we do not, the evidence falls far short of meeting any other criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions in the field above pursuant to the 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). At issue for this criterion are the nature of the roles the 
petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entities that selected him for those roles. In other 
words, the nature of the role must be such that the petitioner's very selection for the role, in and of itself, 
is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Counsel asserted: 
[The petitioner] is part of a very small minority of pathologists who have achieved an 
extraordinary level of expertise because of his clinical and diagnostic abilities. Only the 
top physicians choose to specialize in pathology, as the specialty is one of the most 
complex and difficult medical fields in medicine. Of this elite group, [the petitioner] is 
one of the best. . . . Due to the shortage of physicians with [the petitioner's] high degree 
of expertise in pathology, there is a dire need for pathologists, especially those who 
specialize in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology emphasizing Hematopathology, in the 
United States. Extraordinary pathologists like [the petitioner] play an important and 
critical role at medical institutions across the country. 
(Emphasis in the original.) Counsel appears to be presuming the petitioner's extraordinary ability in 
order to establish the petitioner's leading or critical role rather than relying on the nature of his role as 
evidence of his extraordinary ability. The director concluded that a shortage in a field did not 
demonstrate the extraordinary ability of those within the field. On appeal, counsel acknowledges that a 
shortage alone can not demonstrate eligibility for this classification but asserts that the shortage should 
be taken into account as evidence of the importance of the petitioner's work and its national impact. 
The issue of whether a shortage exists falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. New 
York State Dep't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comrn'r 1998). Nevertheless, the projections 
submitted by the petitioner do not support her position. The petitioner submitted data generated in 
2000 purportedly from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) projecting the 
number of pathologists in 2005 as 20,970 and in 2010 as 21,580. Another chart, Exhibit 30, projects 
physician requirements for pathologists as 18,400 in 2005 and 19,800 in 2010, less than the number of 
actual pathologists projected in both years. Even the "high economic growth series" requirements 
chart, Exhibit 32, projects a need for only 18,000 in 2005 and 21,000 in 2010. While the high 
economic growth series projects a need for more pathologists in 2010 than are projected to exist in that 
year, the difference is only 580. Moreover, the petition was filed in 2008. 
Regardless, a shortage in a given field does not establish that every member of the field is playing a 
leading or critical role within that field such that the role distinguishes him from other practitioners in 
that field. 
More specifically, counsel notes that the petitioner is a house staff physician in the Department of 
Pathology at Tufts Medical Center, served a one-month fellowship at AFIP, and a one-year fellowship 
at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. While the petitioner submitted evidence that these institutions 
enjoy distinguished reputations, the petitioner has not satisfactorily demonstrated that his role for any of 
these institutions was leading or critical beyond the need for the institute to employ a competent 
pathologist. The petitioner's fellowships were both training opportunities. We are not persuaded that a 
trainee performs in a leading or critical role for the training institution. As the most experienced and 
renowned pathologists do not compete for trainee positions, such a role cannot set the petitioner apart 
from other pathologists, including those at the top of the field. The petitioner did not submit an 
organizational chart or other evidence demonstrating where the role of house staff physician fits within 
the hierarchy of Tufts Medical Center. 
In light of the above, the evidence falls far short of establishing that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
house staff physician and pathologist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The 
evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a house staff physician and pathologist, but is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 
the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.