dismissed EB-1A Case: Pathology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20738510 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 22, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a pathologist, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 international 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 criteria 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner holds a medical degree and a Ph.D. in health, both from the !University of 
in his native Brazil. The Petitioner is a professor in the Department of I at 
and served as head of that de artment from 2011 to 2014 and from 2015 to 2017. He also 
worked as director of th and as a pa tho lo gist for municipal and state health 
secretariats in He is also a founder of I which provides laboratory testing 
support services. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown 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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied four of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pertaining to judging and authorship 
of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other two claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria 
relating to judging and authorship of scholarly articles. We further find that he has satisfied the 
criterion relating to a leading or critical role. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the fourth claimed criterion, which 
requires documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that his published articles constitute original contributions of major significance 
in the field. His authorship of those articles falls under a separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
which the Petitioner has satisfied. For his articles to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3Xv), he 
must establish the majorsignificance of those articles. The burden of proofis on the Petitioner to establish 
eligibility; he cannot simply assert that his original contributions are of major significance. 
Although published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is 
of major significance. For example, peer-reviewed presentations at academic symposia or peer-reviewed 
2 
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 that cite the person's 
work as authoritative in the field, may be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the 
field of endeavor. 6 USCIS PolicyManualF.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
As quoted above, the USCJS Policy Manual does not indicate that citations always establish major 
significance; we must consider context, such as the number of those citations. The Petitioner states that 
his published "work has been cited more than 158 times by peers [ from] all over the world." This is a 
cumulative figure, reflecting the aggregate total of citations of all his published work. 
The Petitioner submitted a printout from Google Scholar showing that five of the Petitioner's articles had 
each garnered 10 or more citations; another six articles had citations in the single digits. Two of the most­
cited articles do notrepmioriginal scientific findings in the Petitioner's field. Themost-citedarticle, with 
42 citations, is a 2009 statistical study with the title I 
The third-most-cited article is a review article, which does not report 
original research. Rather, a review article surveys and summarizes the existing literature on a given 
subject. The Petitioner does not explain how a synopsis of already-published research constitutes an 
original contribution of major significance. 
The two remaining most-cited articles were an article from 2011 with 3 5 citations and an article from 
2016 with 12 citations. The Petitioner did not provide comparative evidence to show that these citation 
rates are commensurate with major significance in his field. The Petitioner discussed the calculation of 
impact factors for journals that published his work, but the impact factor is calculated from the overall 
citation rates of all articles published in a given journal. It does not give equal weight to every such 
article, or establish a presumption that a1iicles published in high-impact journals are inherently of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner states, on appeal, that he "contributed with his knowledge through conferences, becoming 
an influence among other colleagues by sharing his own professional experience." The Petitioner has 
documented his participation in a number of conferences, but he has not explained how, or established 
that, these presentations and appearances have major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner asserts that "three expert opinion letters from distinguished professionals in his area of 
expertise [show] that his work has been implemented by professionals." The first such letter is from the 
president of in lwho stated that "several [ of the Petitioner's articles 
were very relevant to this hospital." The second letter is from the director of a urological clinic in 
I lwho states that two of the Petitioner's articles "drew [his] attention and influenced [his] medical 
practice." The third letter is from a plastic surgeon, also in I who states that the Petitioner's 
published work has influenced some of the choices that she has made in her medical practice. 
These letters show that the Petitioner's work has had some degree of influence in the city of ___ 
but local influence is not tantamount to major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner states that the wider significance of his contributions is evident from email messages from 
journal publishers and conference organizers, which praised his earlier work and invited him to submit 
furthermanusc1ipts, join editorial boards, and speak at a conference. These materials are of questionable 
3 
weight. Every message that identifies a particular article by the Petitioner identifies the same article from 
2016. The messages offer general praise for the Petitioner's work, but no detailed discussion as to how 
it is of major significancein the field. Some of the messages appearto have been automatically generated, 
repeating bibliographic information and the abstract of the article without specific comments about the 
article. Many of the messages contain grammatical or typographical errors. The Petitioner's email 
providerflagged one ofthemessagesas "SPAM." One message invited the Petitioner to an "International 
Women [sic] Health and Breast Cancer Conference," indicating that the Petitioner's article established 
his "expertise and knowledge in the area," although that article specifically addressed an anatomical issue 
that only affects males. Given the many issues surrounding these messages, and the lack of any specific 
commentary about the Petitioner's work, we conclude that these materials are not evidence of the major 
significance of the Petitioner's contributions. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of proof regarding this c1iterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
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 a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established eligibility. 
While we conclude that the Petitioner has submitted three of the threshold criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), he has not done so in a manner that establishes sustained national or international 
acclaim. The Petitioner has judged the work of others, thus satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), but he has done so in the course of his normal duties as a university professor and 
department head, examining master's theses and evaluating candidates for faculty positions. 
Publication of scholarly articles satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), but this activity 
appears to be routine in academia, rather than a privilege restricted to those at the top of their fields. 
The Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that his work at _____ 
I I amounts to a critical role for an organization with a distinguished organization, thus satisfying 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), but the record shows that his family founded the company 
and still owns it; the Petitioner himself received 30% of its shares from his father. Employment in a 
family-owned business certainly does not preclude national or international acclaim; a person in such 
a situation could attain such acclaim through their work. But the record does not show that the 
Petitioner's role at I has resulted in such acclaim, or that his high-ranking 
position is based on his acclaim. The Petitioner has submitted copies of news articles about the 
company, but these articles do not discuss the Petitioner apart from identifying him in captions to 
1 See also 6 USC IS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2 appendix (stating that USC IS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
togetherwhen conside1ingthe petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
group photographs. Also, the submitted articles about the company have appeared in local media and 
do not establish that the company's officers, such as the Petitioner, are known outside two states in 
Eastern Brazil. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has established that he has been active as a researcher, but he has not 
shown that the reception and influence of his research rises to the level of national or international 
acclaim. The submitted citation figures lack a basis for comparison to show that the articles are among 
the most-cited in the field. 
Several lines of evidence, including documentation of his business activity and letters written to 
support the petition, indicate that the Petitioner's recognition is largely concentrated in thel I 
area. For example, one of the Petitioner's former professors a tated that the Petitioner's 
work at _________ gave a huge contribution to the city of I Some of 
these individuals work in medical specialties other than the Petitioner's stated specialty of pathology. 
The letters emphasize praise for the Petitioner's skills and knowledge, rather than specific ways in 
which the Petitioner's work has received national or international recognition. 
For the reasons explained above, the Petitioner has not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim required for eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted the required initial evidence to meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). But in our final merits determination, we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, and we conclude that it does not support a conclusion 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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section203(b)(l )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner's reputation 
appears to be predominantly local or regional. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5