dismissed EB-1A Case: Pediatric Intensive Care

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5463151 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 4, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a physician specializing in pediatric intensive care, seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska 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 aliens 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a consultant, pediatric intensivist, and assistant professor at ~I ----~I University 
Hospital at.__ ____________ __,Saudi Arabia. 
The Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award. Therefore, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, relating to participation as a judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and publication of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Petitioner 
claimed to satisfy two other criteria, discussed below. 
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) 
The Petitioner submitted photographs of various recognition plaques and copies of certificates. We agree 
with the Director's finding that the Petitioner had not established "the 'significance and scope' of the 
prizes." 
Many of the plaques are internal faculty awards from D recognizing various activities the Petitioner 
performed there such as updating guidelines, "supervising curriculum changes," and unspecified "active 
contribution to the success of academic accreditation activities." The inscriptions on other plaques 
indicate that the Petitioner received them for participating in various medical conferences. The Petitioner 
did not show that these plaques are nationally or internationally recognized awards, or that he received 
them for excellence in the field of endeavor rather than for participation in specific projects or tasks. 
After the filing date, the Petitioner has continued to receive similar awards fromO but the record does 
not show that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized, or that anyone who is not working 
at~is eligible to receive those awards. 
Rather than submit evidence that his awards are recognized outside of D, the Petitioner asserted that 
Owas one of the first accredited universities in Saudi Arabia, and that its "College of Medicine is 
among the leading national medical schools .... Therefore, the awards and recognitions awarded to [the 
Petitioner] byl !University are nationally significant." The conclusion does not follow from the 
premises. The Petitioner did not establish that the wider medical field, nationally or internationally, takes 
2 
notice of the prizes thatOawards to its own faculty members. The overall reputation of the awarding 
entity does not, by itself, confer national or international recognition on honors that the entity bestows on 
its employees. 
A "Certificate of Appreciation" from the Saudi Pediatric Association (SP A) recognized the Petitioner's 
"outstanding accomplishment by establishing and organizing the first SPA-endorsed National Childhood 
Safety Campaign" in 2017. The Petitioner did not establish that the certificate is nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Another "Certificate of Appreciation" from the Saudi Patient Safety Center reads, in part: 
"Congratulations for being recognized as a nominee for 2018 National Patient Safety." A nomination is 
not a prize or award, and the Petitioner did not show that he won the award for which he was nominated. 
The Petitioner has not shown that he has received nationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in his field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, 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 this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. 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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The Petitioner stated that he "has made ori inal scientific contributions to the field of Pediatric Intensive 
Care by contributing to research 
sets him apart from his peers." The Petitioner was one of 53 authors of' 
~--------_,," a 2015 paper that had been cited more than 160 times as of the filing date. 
Quoting part of the article's title, as above, does not sufficiently identify the Petitioner's contribution. 
This article, like most of the Petitioner's cited work, was a product of the Global Burden of Disease 
(GBD), a series of collaborations described by the GBD secretariat as "an international network of more 
than 1,000 individuals, based in over 100 countries." The GBD collected data from institutions around 
the world, and published articles with dozens or hundreds of co-authors. 1 The Petitioner's participation 
1 At the time of filing in December 2018, the Petitioner documented 549 citations of 20 published articles. Most of those 
citations pertain to GBD articles. The majority of the citations ( 445 out of 549, or 81 % ) relate to three GBD articles with 50 or 
more co-authors. For the most-cited article, discussed above, the Petitioner was one of587 named co-authors. The Petitioner's 
published articles outside the GBD collaborations earned an aggregate total of60 citations at the time of filing. The Petitioner's 
two most-cited non-GBD articles accumulated 28 and 13 citations, respectively; seven others had between 1 and 5 citations 
each. On appeal, the Petitioner notes that citations have increased since the time of filing, but the updated figures still skew 
heavily toward GBD articles. 
3 
in a massive global collaboration is not, itself, an original contribution of major significance, and he did 
not identify his specific contributions to the highly-cited GBD articles. 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner showed that he has a ResearchGate score of 31.94, 
which "is higher than 90% of ResearchGate members." On appeal, the Petitioner showed a 'Total 
Research Interest score" of 1710, which is "[h]igher than 98% of researchers in Emergency Medical 
Care." The Petitioner did not submit evidence or information to put this score into context. For instance, 
the Petitioner did not show how the scores were calculated, or establish that ResearchGate members are 
a representative cross-section of the field. We note that it is not evident from the record that the 
Petitioner's specialty is "Emergency Medical Care." More significantly, the scores do not identify any 
original contribution by the Petitioner. Without the necessary context, the ResearchGate information has 
minimal weight in this proceeding. 
The Petitioner stated that he: 
is the first to establish a national registry of DNA with a lab for multicenter genetic 
research for children withl I ... [The Petitioner's] development of this 
DNA registry is the only genetic registry for this disease in the region . . . . [The 
Petitioner's] contribution ... significantly impacted public health in the region and 
globally. 
(Emphasis added.) The phrase "in the region" implies that other such registries already existed elsewhere. 
The Petitioner did not explain how establishing a registry in a different location is an original contribution, 
or submit evidence to show that it has already "significantly impacted public health ... globally." 
The Petitioner also stated that he "is an expert in medical informatics applications and the customization 
of the electronic health records (EHR)." The Petitioner continued: 
[The Petitioner] obtained a certificate on the Essentials of Health Informatics ... from 
I !University and.._ _______ __. University. [The Petitioner] was 
selected by the Pediatric Department to lead the EHR Taskforce ... which played a major 
role in the successful implementation of the new EHR system. This has resulted in his 
health care facility becoming the first hospital in Saudi Arabia to adopt these ethnicity­
specific normal measurements, resulting in improved patient care. 
The Petitioner did not explain how implementing an EHR system constitutes an original contribution, 
rather than applying existing methods in a new location. The above quotation indicates that the Petitioner 
acquired the necessary skills at the same university where he implemented the system. 
Letters from colleagues and collaborators likewise attest to the Petitioner's introduction of existing 
methods to Saudi Arabia, and to his diligent efforts in improving education and care at the institutions 
where he has worked while also conducting useful research. These efforts may well have improved local 
health care and added to the general pool of knowledge in the Petitioner's specialty, but the Petitioner and 
his colleagues do not explain how they constitute original contributions or have major significance with 
respect to the field as a whole. 
4 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not identify any specific original contributions that he 
showed to be of major significance in the field. 
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 
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 and recognition of his work at KSU are indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that they are 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 that he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5