dismissed EB-1A Case: Plastic Surgery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 28, 2024 In Re: 30254224 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify herself as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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 does not 
establish the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 
IO initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [ noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen]'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 their 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 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 10 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded the record does not establish 
the Petitioner received a one­
time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. The Director further concluded that 
the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 10 listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), specifically addressing the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v)-(vi), (viii)­
(ix). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v)-(vi), (viii)-(ix). The Petitioner does not assert on appeal that the record satisfies 
any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii)-(iv), (vii), or (x), thereby waiving those potential 
criteria. See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (citing Greenlaw v. US., 
554 U.S. 237 (2008) (upholding the party presentation rule)). The Petitioner does not overcome the 
Director's denial for the reasons discussed below. 
Documentation of the [noncitizen 's] membership in associations in thefieldfor which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director acknowledged that the record establishes the Petitioner is an active member in the 
Russian Society of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (the RSPRAS), and that the record 
contains information related to that society. The Director summarized membership criteria and noted 
that neither general nor "honorary" membership requires outstanding achievements. Rather, in 
relevant part, "honorary" membership is based on "a simple majority of votes" to determine whether 
the society considers the recipient "deserving of special honor for a significant contribution." The 
Director further noted that the record does not establish the qualifications of the voters who award 
"honorary" membership, nor does it establish whether a "significant contribution," contemplated by 
the society's voters, may be indicative of the "outstanding achievements" contemplated by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Director further noted that the record does not establish 
the Petitioner is an "honorary" member. The Director concluded that, because the record does not 
establish that the society requires outstanding achievements of their members, "honorary" or 
otherwise, the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she "submitted with her [request for evidence (RFE)] response 
her Honorary Membership Certificate which states that it 'may be a person whom the Organization 
considers deserving a special honor for a significant contribution."' We note that, on appeal, the 
Petitioner does not specifically assert that she believes her membership in the RSPRAS-or anything 
else-satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record does not support the Petitioner's statements on appeal and, even if it did, it would not 
establish that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) has been satisfied. The document submitted in 
response to the Director's RFE that the Petitioner quotes on appeal is an English copy of the RSPRAS 
Charter, dated March 15, 1994, as amended both on February 5, 1999, and again in 2007-not a 
membership certificate. Specifically, general provision 3.7.1.1 of the Charter provides, in relevant 
part, that an honorary member "may be a person whom the Organization considers deserving of a 
special honor for a significant contribution." In contrast, the undated, English copy of the Petitioner's 
RSPRAS membership certificate, which she submitted at the time she filed the Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Workers, not in response to the Director's RFE, states that the Petitioner "is an active 
member of Russian Society of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons," not that she is an 
honorary member or that the RSPRAS considers her "deserving a special honor for a significant 
contribution." 
Moreover, even if the record established that the Petitioner is an honorary member of the RSPRAS, 
which it does not, as the Director explained, the record does not establish whether a "significant 
contribution" contemplated by the RSPRAS for honorary membership may be equivalent to the 
"outstanding achievements" contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As the 
Director further noted, the record does not establish that the individuals who vote on candidates for 
honorary RSPRAS membership are the type of "recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields" contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Because the record does not establish the Petitioner has a membership in an association in the field for 
which classification is sought, which requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields, the record does not satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Evidence that the [noncitizen] 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). 
The Director acknowledged that the record contains letters written by 
I The Director summarized the content of the letters; however, the Director 
observed that they do not establish whether the role the Petitioner has performed for any particular 
organization or establishment was leading or critical or, furthermore, whether those organizations or 
establishments have a distinguished reputation. Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does 
not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the extent of the Petitioner's assertions regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5 h 3 vm is the followin : "As stated in the initial filing, [the Petitioner] played a critical 
role for 
3 
I 
The record contains a recommendation letter written byl Ihowever, the letter does not 
reference it does not establish whether the __________ 
or any other organization or establishment where the Petitioner has worked-has a distinguished 
reputation, and it does not establish whether the Petitioner performed a leading or critical role for any 
such organization or establishment. Instead, the letter asserts, in relevant part, "in 2017, I was trained 
by [the Petitioner]." The letter further opines, "I knew that [the Petitioner] was a professional in her 
area," and it relays gratitude "for the precious knowledge I got." The letter does not, however, 
establish which organization or establishment may have employed the Petitioner in 2017 when she 
trained! I how that unspecified organization or establishment may have a distinguished 
reputation, and how the Petitioner's role, apparently as a "trainer," may have been leading or critical 
to that organization or establishment. 
The record also contains two other letters of recommendation addressed by the Director, written by 
Neither of the letters are dated. The first letter, submitted at the time of filing, 
notes in relevant part that the Petitioner "took on a very challenging role of my assistant at a 
complicated circular blepharoplasty surgery combined with second chin liposuction and circular face­
lift" in 2018. However, the letter does not elaborate on how the Petitioner's role of "assistant," 
apparently for a single medical procedure, qualifies as the type of leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments, contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Moreover, even if the letter established how the Petitioner's role of "assistant" for a single medical 
procedure qualified as a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment, which it does not, 
the letter does not establish how that organization or establishment-apparently the I I 
Russia, where ______ ___,asserted he worked at the time 
he wrote the letter-has the type of distinguished reputation contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The second letter, this time identifying the writer as also is undated; 
however, the Petitioner submitted it in her March 2023 response to the Director's October 2022 RFE. 
The second letter, apparently written sometime between the 2021 filing date and the 2023 RFE 
response, indicates that I I employer at the unspecified time of 
writing is the which the Petitioner erroneously asserts on appeal was 
"stated in the initial filing." The second letter provides directly conflicting statements. Specifically, 
the letter asserts, "With this letter, I would like to emphasize the critical role of [the Petitioner] for our 
clinic, and in general for the cosmetology industry." However, the letter also asserts, "Today [the 
Petitioner] assists me in carrying out operations." The letter does not reconcile how the Petitioner's 
role as assistant may be leading or critical for the I I 
I lor "for the cosmetology industry." Moreover, even if the letter provided consistent 
information regarding how the Petitioner's role as an assistant may be leading or critical, it does not 
establish whether the has the type of distinguished reputation 
contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Because the record does not establish that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, it does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
4 
Evidence that the [noncitizen] has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration/or services, in relation to others in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Director acknowledged that the record contains copies of the Petitioner's bank statements, 
currency conversions, and publications relating to occupational income. However, the Director noted 
that, unlike evidence such as paystubs from a particular employer, the bank statements "did not 
describe, or provide evidence to show, which sources of income in the statements were remuneration 
for work as a cosmetologist." The Director also noted that the publications reflect "average salaries 
for Russia but [they do not] break down remuneration based on years of experience, specific 
geographic area, and level of seniority" to better articulate how the Petitioner's salary or remuneration 
for services may compare in relation to others in the field. Based on those evidentiary deficiencies, 
the Director concluded that the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that "her bank statements ... list names of her clients and amounts 
she received for cosmetology services," and that the bank statements total an annual income of 
"4,922,027 RUB which equals to 410,168 RUB monthly." The Petitioner further asserts on appeal 
that the record establishes that "the monthly salary of [ c ]osmetologists working in Moscow region in 
Russia is from 50,000 to 180,000." 
We first note that the letters from discussed above, indicate that the 
Petitioner works as an assistant "in the city ofl IRussia." We take administrative notice 
that I is approximately 1,100 miles south of Moscow. The record does not establish how 
the monthly salary of cosmetologists working in the Moscow region informs what the salary of 
cosmetologists working approximately 1,100 miles away inl Imay be. Furthermore, as 
the Director noted, the generalized information in the record does not inform how salaries may differ 
based on years of experience, level of seniority, and other variables that may contextualize salaries or 
other remuneration. 
We next note that the record does not contain copies of the Petitioner's bank statements translated in 
English. The record contains copies of documents that appear to bear dates and other numbers; 
however, the text of those documents is written in a language other than English. The regulations 
specifically require, "Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and 
accurate." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Rather than submitting a full English language translation of the 
documents in question, the Petitioner submitted a half-page certification stating, in relevant part, that 
"according to [the Petitioner's] bank statement for the period from October 5, 2019[,] to October 4, 
2020, the bank account received funds in the amount of RUB 4,922,027.38, which is USD 63,028.9." 
Contrary to the Petitioner's statement on appeal, the certification does not purport that the bank 
statements "list names of [the Petitioner's] clients and amounts she received for cosmetology 
services." In summation, the record does not establish what income the Petitioner may have received 
for services in the relevant field, nor does it establish how that income may relate to others in the field, 
in the location where the record indicates the Petitioner works, with other relevant factors. 
Because the record does not establish whether the Petitioner has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field, it does not satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
5 
We need not determine whether the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)-(vi) 
because, even if it did, the record would not satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)-(vi). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner has not established she received a one-time achievement or, in the alternative, evidence 
that meets at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we need not 
provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. Nevertheless, we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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)(l)(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 she is one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6