dismissed EB-1A Case: Public Health Specialist

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. lJepanmcnt of Homeland ~('curit~ 
I!S Ci ti,'cl1"hip and !ml1li)!1 <11 il)l1 Sl'r\ iev, 
Alil1lini."tnHi\c ;\ppC,!i:. ()II il"l' (1\:\0) 
20 Mas:-;achu'-,cl1s Ave, "'<.\V .. !'vI"; _'WJ() 
DATE: JUN I 4 ZOlZ Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USc, § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case, All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case, Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office, 
If you helieve the /\AO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
int'lfmation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
with the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-29013, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at 
R c'F.R. ~ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that R c'F.R. 
~ l03.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to 
reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~'/I 
_ /..1 Perry Rhcw 
U .: Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goy 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. The director also found that the petitioner had failed to establish 
that she is among that small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), and (vi). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the 
director's decision. 
I. Law 
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. 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) 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 H.R. 723 101
s1 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles III the field, III 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will apply the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on August 4, 2010, seeks to classify the pelit!oner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a public health specialist. At the time of filing, the petitioner was 
working "as a contracted medical epidemiologist in the . at the Centers 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The pehhoner has submitted documentation 
pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. In 
general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.} 
submitted a March 2, 2006 article entitled in the _ 
the author of the article was not 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, 
the article is about a malaria study being conducted in Gauteng, South Africa rather than the 
petitioner herself. The article only briefly mentions the petitioner as one of two contact persons 
designated to provide information regarding the study. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." See, e.g., 
Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding 
a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), 
which requires evidence "about the alien's work." It cannot be credibly asserted that the submitted 
article is "about" the petitioner. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that HST 
Bulletin qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted article entitled posted 
at www.news24.com. The article, which includes only two is 
not about her. Instead, the article is about a female student at Pretoria Technikon in South Africa 
suspected of contracting Sars while visiting her parents in China. Further, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that \vww.news24.com qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an 
Diseases Branch" posted on 
article entitled "[ 
ational Center for 
the author of the article was not as req the 
plain language of the CI5'Hm'UH at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, there is no documentary 
, 
- On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
J Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, hut in a section that is distrihuted only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instancc, cannot scrve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page fi 
evidence showing that the NCSVED's website qualifies as a professional or major trade publication 
or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory 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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a May 13,2010 letter from with 
the that he has worked with the petitioner in South Africa and in the United States. 
further states: 
[The petitioner] remains one of the foremost experts on these "hot diseases" and continues 
to be sought after by world governments and the World Health Organization (WHO) to help 
investigate and control new and re-emergent diseases anytime and anywhere they occur. 
[The petitioner] serves on CDC and World Health Organization committees responsible for 
detection and control of these diseases. 
With regard to comments, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner's service on CDC and WHO committees involved her "participation, either individually 
or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others" in the field. 
stating that he coauthored an article with the 
petitioner and for a course that she was coordinating at 
the University of further states: "I invited [the 
petitioner] to join our organizing committee for the International Symposium on Veterinary 
Epidemiology and Economics precisely because of her broad medical influence and reputation 
within the medical public health community." 
The limited information provided in the preceding letters 
does not identify the specific work judged by the petitioner or the dates of her participation. 
Merely submitting letters claiming that the petitioner served on various committees without 
specifying the work she actuall y judged is insufficient to establish eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 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)). Moreover, if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there 
is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N 
Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The petitioner submitted a June 18, 2010 letter from 
-----
--Page 7 
Universi~ia. The 
graduate of the University of Pretoria:_states: 
On the basis of her expertise III we invited [the 
petitioner] to judge the presentations of research conducted by field epidemiologist 
trainees in the South African Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme at 
our first scientific meeting in Johannesburg in 2009. The work she evaluated was 
conducted and presented by masters level public health professionals from backgrounds 
in medicine, veterinary science, public health and medical science. 
[The petitioner] was also invited to evaluate seminars developed by physicians 
completing their Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Health at the University of Pretoria 
from 2004 through 2007. 
The petitioner submitted a June 18, 2010 e-mail message from an Editorial Assistant for American 
~cal Medicine and Hygiene thanking the petitioner for reviewing manuscript 
.....- entitled "Seroprevalence Survey of Chikungunya Virus in Bagan Pachor, 
Malaysia. " 
The submitted documentation demonstrates that the petitioner judged research presentations by 
epidemiologist trainees, evaluated seminars developed by students completing their Diploma in 
Tropical Medicine and Health at her alma mater, and peer-reviewed a single manuscript for 
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene as of the petition's tiling date. The AAO 
affirms the director's determination that this documentation satisfies the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner had 
failed to submit documentary evidence demonstrating that her original scientific contributions 
were of major significance to her field. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. u.s. AU'y Gell., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
4 The record includes a May 21, 2010 letter rrom ••• lindicating that she supervised the petitioner's graduate work 
at the the petitioner's work for the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, and an 
investigation conducted by the petitioner relating to a typhoid fever outbreak. 
--Page 8 
The petitioner submitted four pages from the March 2008 issue 
4 of the EIS Bulletin lists an "Epi-Aid" issued by the petitioner in 2007 
••• 1'" but the petitioner failed to submit a copy of her complete article 
and evidence showing that the article was published in a professional or major trade publication or 
some other form of major media. The petitioner also submitted a document coauthored with _ 
_ entitled "An investigation into the role of the 18-month measles vaccination in measles 
vaccination coverage in South Africa," but there is no evidence showing that it was published in 
a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of 
trom a Mountain Lion Carcass" in Clinical Infectious Diseases, "The burden of imported malaria in 
Gauteng Province" in South African Medical Journal, "Surveillance of Malaria in Gauteng 
Province" in Communicable Diseases Surveillance Bulletin, and "Tularemia - Missouri, 2000-
2007" in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The record demonstrates that petitioner has 
coauthored four published articles as of the petition's filing date and, thus, the AAO affirms the 
director's determination that this documentation satisfies the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion found that the petitioner failed to 
submit documentary evidence demonstrating that she has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the petitioner does 
not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, 
therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 
WL 4711885. at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, 
or that she meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish 
the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Detennination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Page 9 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), all 
three of the petitioner's submissions were deficient in at least two of the regulatory requirements 
such as not identifying the author, not being about the petitioner, or not being accompanied by 
evidence that they were published in major media. The petitioner has not established that the 
evidence submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii) is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that she is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field. Further, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner has had material published about her subsequent to 2007. The statute 
and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that her national or international 
acclaim as a public health specialist has been sustained. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 
S U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim 
as of the filing date of the petition. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), 
the nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
submitted evidence is indicative of her recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See 
As previously discussed, the petitioner was invited by her ••• 
•••••••• ito evaluate the research presentations of epidemiologist "trainees" in the 
South African Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program. _ also states that 
the petitioner evaluated seminars Diploma in Tropical 
Medicine and Health at her alma mater, The petitioner has not 
established that reviewing the work of at request former supervisor and 
evaluating the work of students completing their Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Health at the 
request of her alma mater are commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). The AAO notes that 
the submitted evidence is not indicative of recognition beyond the petitioner's former supervisor 
and alma mater. Further, the petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that she judged 
acclaimed epidemiologists, medical professors, research scientists, or physicians in the field 
rather than those in the early stages of their career. Cf, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability"). Evaluating the work of 
accomplished physicians or professors as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating the work of students or trainees. The documentation submitted by 
the petitioner does not establish that her level of judging is commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence demonstrating that she peer-reviewed a single manuscript for 
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene as of the petition's filing date. The petitioner 
has not established that her level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of her field of endeavor. The AAO notes that 
peer review of manuscripts is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for 
publication in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of 
Page 10 
numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a 
publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The 
publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining 
whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart 
from others in her field, such as evidence that she has received and completed numerous 
independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal, the AAO cannot conclude that her level and frequency of 
peer review is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the ve of 
the field. For instance, 
In regard to the petitioner's original research findings as discussed in the reference letters submitted 
for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the director found that they did not rise to 
the level of contributions of "major significance" in the field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's 
work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the 
petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
That page (59) also says that "an alien must (l) demonstrate sustained national or international 
acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive 
documentation) ... " Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the petitioner a 
master's degree, let alone classification as a public health specialist of extraordinary ability. To 
argue that all original research is, by definition, "extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond 
any useful meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." In this case, the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence that the petitioner'S original work had major significance in the 
field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally acclaimed as 
extraordinary. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(vi), 
the petitioner has documented her co-authorship of only four published articles at the time of filing. 
The petitioner has not established that her limited publication record sets her apart through a 
"career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59. Moreover, the citation history of the 
petitioner's scholarly articles is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative 
of the petitioner's recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 
1122. In the present matter, there is no citation evidence indicating that others in the field have 
frequently cited the petitioner's scholarly articles in their work. The documentation submitted by 
the petitioner fails to demonstrate that her scholarly articles have attracted a level of interest in 
her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the director found that the petitioner had not established that she has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that her temporary training 
positions as a student and resident at the ~~~==== as a student and resident at the 
and as student of the 
Page 11 
the CDC were leading or critical to those institutions, or otherwise commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a _ 
the CDC, relies on three articles that are not primarily about her or that 
have been published in major media, a single instance of peer review for 
American JOllrnal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, reviewing the work of "trainees" at the 
request of her former supervisor, evaluating the work of students completing their Diploma in 
Tropical Medicine and Health at the request of her alma mater, evidence documenting her co­
authorship of only four published articles, the affirmation of her colleagues that her work was 
important to the institutions where she trained, and the general praise of her references. 
The AAO notes that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than 
those of the petitioner. For example, states: 
I am the State Epidemiologist in Missouri, heading the Section of Epidemiology for 
Public Health Practice, located in Jefferson City, Missouri. As the lead public health 
scientist for our state agency and a renowned Ph.D. epidemiologist who has worked both 
domestically and internationally with experience being elected the Chair of the largest 
epidemiology organization in North America (the American Public Health Association 
Epidemiology Section), I am well qualified .... 
states: 
I am an III 
Townsville, in North Eastern Queensland Australia. JCU is renowned for its focus on 
tropical and travel medicine. I maintain ties with the University of Pretoria, South Africa 
through an extraordinary professor's appointment. . .. I have published widely on 
environmental and infectious disease epidemiology topics. I am also recognized as a 
specialist in public health and epidemiology within the European Union and Australia. 
states: 
~ with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and an 
~c Intelligence Service Officers Program. 
Last year I returned from Pretoria, South Africa where I served for six years as the 
_of the Under my leadership we moved the 
program from a small office with 7 staff and a budget of $5 million in 2004, to a program 
with more than 100 staff, 4 regional offices throughout South Africa ... and a budget of 
over $300 million per year. I was awarded commendations by _ and my Center for 
2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively for our efforts in managing this process of 
change. 
Page 12 
I currently serve as the Senior Advisor to the Department of Health and Human Services 
for health systems strengthening and capacity building around the world. 
states: 
is designed to train field epidelmi()lo,gists 
public health laboratorians for leadership positions in the South African national and 
provincial health services and the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS). Over 
the past 25 years, Field Epidemiology Training Programmes (FETP) have been 
established in over 33 countries worldwide. . .. I am also an extraordinary lecturer at the 
School of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, coordinating the 
Diploma in Tropical Medicine and Health course, one of only two such courses 
accredited in the country. I am a member of the South African Expanded Programme on 
Immunization Task Group and am a member of the Directors Board of the African Field 
Epidemiology Network. I have 20 years' experience in public health and disease control. 
Health Branch, Division of Global 
Prevention. also serves as the 
and an 
illiiililititionerl 
states: 
I am a board certified infectious disease 
public health and vector-borne infectious jis'ea,;es. 
petitioner 1 during her 2 years as an 
branch at CDC. 
states: 
-Page 13 
I ... am the an 
international nongovernmental organization founded in 1993 as a result of the 
Commission on Health Research for Development and the recommendations of its report. 
* * * 
I am a public health physician and epidemiologist and I have worked in rural medicine, 
pen-urban and urban health care and environmental health services, as well as In 
academic public health education and research ethics training. I remain an 
•••••••••••••••••••••• University and I have f'UIJ"'''ICU 
widely in various areas in applied research and public health. I was 
of the University of Pretoria's School of Health Systems and Public Health, the School in 
which [the petitioner] qualified as a public health medicine specialist. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than herself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of her field of endeavor is far above 
the level she has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that her achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a public health 
specialist, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The 
submitted evidence is not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59. 
III. Conclusion 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to 
such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim 
and to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive 
that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a 
national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
-Page 14 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.