dismissed EB-1A Case: Public Health

(b)(6)
r.- . ~' 
DATE: 
·INRE: 
APR 0 2 2013 
Petitioner: -­
BenefiCiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
Q,S, :oeparriueat of:~_om.~lalid Seeu'iitY 
U~S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary AbilityPursuant to Section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALFOF 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 niade to that office . . 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion_ to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seekS to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
_I 
w-Ww~11scis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now b,efore the Administrative Appeals Offiee (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, specifically in 
the area of public health, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the lmrriigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acdaim ·necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
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)(l)(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 submits an appeal brief, along with evidence, some of which counsel is offering for · 
the first time. Counsel maintains that the petitioner has met eight of the ten evidentiary 'criteria outlined 
in the regulations, of which the petitioner inust satisfy only three . . 
· 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.-- Art 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. 
(b)(6)
Page3 
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 abiiity. See · H.R. 723 101
51 
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. /d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner d~monstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(1)-(x). 
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. 1 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 "fmal merits determination." /d. 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)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5{h)(3)). 
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 review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. ·As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Certification and Translation 
As an initial matter, the petitioner has submitted documents, some of which are in Spanish, at various 
stages of these proceedings. · "Petitioners and applicants for . immigration benefits are required by 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page 4 . 
regulation to provide certified English . translations · of any foreign language documents they 
submit." Matter of Nevarez, 15 I&N Dec. 550, 551 {BIA 1976) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b), now 
promulgated at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)) which states: "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, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English." The language utilized within the regulation implicitly 
precludes a single certification that validates several translated ·forms of evidence unless the certification 
specifically lists the translated documents. Without a single translator's certification for each foreign 
language form of evidence, or a translator's certification specifically listing the documents it is 
validating, the certification cannot be regarded to be certifying any specific form of evidence. The final 
determination of whether evidence meets the plain language requirements of a regulation lies with 
USCIS. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (finding that the 
appropriate entity to determine eligibility is USCIS). 
While not specifically addressed by 
.the director in his decision, the petitioner submitted numerous 
translations that were not each accompanied by a certified translation in accordance with the regulation, 
provided only partial translation of a document, or failed to include a translation along with the foreign 
language document. ·Such deficiencies preclude the petitioner from meeting the requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Consequently, any foreign language document demonstrating 
deficiencies in translation or certification of translation is not probative evidence. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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 director determined that the petitioner submitted four awards for consideration under this criterion: 
. ' 
and 
. -- ·- -- - - - - -- - - - ~ The rrector concluelea that 
such awards do not meet the regulatory requirements because they appear to have been-received while 
the petitioner 
was pursuing an education. In addition, the director clarified that the petitioner's honors 
do not meet the language of the regulation because those types of awards are restricted to students or 
early career professionals in the field. 
On appeal, in response to the director's findings, counsel asserts that the petitioner received the above 
honors after completion of her degree in medicince. Nonetheless, many of the above awards are either 
specifically age restricted or generally conferred on physicians who are still in training programs such 
as an internship, residency, or a fellowship program. Such restrictions or limitations have the effect of 
excluding established professionals who have already achieved excellence in the field of endeavor. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
PageS 
/ 
While an age-restricted award could conceivably still be nationally or internationally recognized, the 
record does not contain evidence indicating that any of the awards are so recognized. The failure to 
include evidence of national or international recognition of the awards results in the failure to satisfy a 
critical plain language requirement of the regulation. On appeal, counsel describes the group of awards 
as "nationally recognized prizes" and states that the Best Intern Physician Award was an "an award 
designated annually at national level." However, the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirerz-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). Moreover, at issue is not whether the pool of competitors is national or 
international but whether the prize or award itself is nationally or internationally recognized in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to satisfy .the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2Q4.5(h)(3)(i} 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner submitted evidence of various memberships in support of this criterion in support of the 
initial 1-140 petition and in response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE). The director, in the 
denial decision, specifically discussed the petitioner's evidence as a 
-
and an as well as a 
for the The director determined thatthe evidence ~ubmitted relating 
to all these memberships indicates that the petitioner's membership status had expired. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner retains active membership to some of the associatioris·that 
the director discusses in the denial arid submits new evidence on appeal. The AAO will consider these 
memberships below. Regarding the memberships previously documented that counsel does not address 
on appeal, the petitioner has abandoned any claims that those memberships are qualifying. See 
Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. 
Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-cV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
A~ evicience that the petitioner retains status as an 
counsel on appeal submits a purported webpage from that organization's membership 
directory page, along with the associated translation of the webpage contents. Counsel also submits 
a copy of the bylaws relating to the requirements for becoming an Associate Member, along with the 
associated translation. The requirements for Associate Members as outlined by the bylaws are limited 
to education, residence, absence of sanctions, recommendations and the payment of dues. Thus, the 
society does not require outstanding achievements of their associate members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. 
(b)(6)
Page6 
Counsel also submits on appeal a letter from President of the 
purportedly stating that the petitioner was a Principal Member between 1998 and 2005, and 
appointed as an Honorary Member since 2006 to date. However, the record does not contain evidence 
indicating ~hat outstanding achievements are required to either be admitted as a Principal Member or an 
Honorary Member of the organization. 
The final document that counsel submits on appeal in support of this criterion is a letter from 
and President and Secretary, respectively, of the 
The letter states that the petitioner is an Active Member of the organization. 
The petitioner, however, has failed to include documentation showing that outstanding achievements 
are a requirement for gaining Active Membership in the or that 
the club is an association in the petitioner's field. Moreover, both of the above mentioned letters are 
written in Spanish and while the petitioner submitted translations with the originals, she failed to 
include certifications of translation, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
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. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field 
under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in 
professional or major trade publications oi other major media· (in the plural). Professional or major . 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have ·significant national· or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner had appeared on television and was "a regular contributor 
of articles and interviews." The petitioner submitted photographs of herself on television and foreign 
·language articles with partia1, uncertified translations. The director's RFE listed deficiencies in this 
evidence and counsel's response and appellate brief do not address this initial evidence. As such, the 
petitioner has abandoned any claim that this evidence satisfies this ·criterion. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d 
at 1228 n. 2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9; 
In response to the RFE and again on appeal, rounsel references the petitioner's participation in writing a 
document titled, ' · 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
_ _ The director determined that the submitted evidence did .not meet the requirements of 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), largely because the guidelines are not about the petitioner. 
On appeal, counsel submits the above mentioned guidelines with a related translation. Counsel further 
maintains that while the document does not bear the name of the petitioner, a letter that counsel re­
submits on appeal attests to the fact that the petitioner served on a committee that drafted the 
" At the 
outset, the regulations contain a separate ·criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presll1!1e that-evidence relating to or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence. that the petitioner also meets this criterion. The 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
authorship of scholarly articles and published material about the alien in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 3 
To hold otherwise would render meaningless· the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Thus, there is no 
presumption that the petitioner's own work product is published material for purposes of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). ' 
Additionally, counsel on appeal has failed to address the director's basis for denial with respect to this 
criterion. Counsel on appeal does not respond to the director's finding that the submitted evidence in 
this instance is not "about" the petitioner. Counsel also does not respond to the director's determination 
that there is nothing in the record to indicate that·the submitted document is found in a professional or a 
major trade publication or other major media. After a review of the translation of the submitted 
document, the AAO concludes that the contents are not "about" the petitioner and there is no 
supplemental evidence to indicate that the document in question appeared in a professional or a major 
trade publication or other major media. 
Consequently, the petitioner has failed to meet the plain language requirements of the regulation. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or ari allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). · 
'--
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. On appeal, eounsel asserts that 
USCIS failed to discus~ two of the three examples of evidence of the. petitioner's participation as a 
judge. Specifically, counsel asserts that the petitioner participated as a judge in her capacity as 1) a 
· - - · · · 2) a Member of the 
and 3) the • 
3 Publications and presentations, properly addressed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), are not also sufficient 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of"major significance." Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not 
demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3.d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
Andes. The supplemental eviden~ 'that counsel submits on appeal describes the duties for a Member of 
the and the 
The petitioner also submitted the bylaws outlining the duties of the 
_ The. bylaws, however, submitted on appeal are in Spanish and 
while there is an associated translation submitted along with the original, there is no accompanying 
certification of translation as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Therefore, the bylaws have minimal 
weight as probative, credible evidence pursuant to this criterion. Nonetheless, the description of the 
petitioner's duties as a which includes arbitrating 
and making appraisals of professionals and medical facilities, indicates that the petitioner participated as 
a judge of the work of others. 
Thus, the AAO withdraws the ·director's determination in this regard and concludes that the petitioner 
submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original' scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. In making his determination, the 
director considered letters of support from the following individuals: Titular 
Professor at the General Coordinator and Vice President 
at Coordinator of Graduate 0 erating at 
and Director at the 
. · The director ultimately found the above letters to be insufficient evidence 
of the petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel characterizes some of the petitioner's specific accomplishments as original 
contributions of major significance. Counsel, however, does not raise a legal or factual challenge 
regarding the director's conclusions relating to the above letters on appeal and the AAO concludes 
that 
the petitioner abandoned any claims under this criterion relating to those letters. See Sepulveda, 401 
F.3d at 1228 n. 2; Hristov, 2011 WL4711885 at *9. 
Counsel asserts . that the following accomplishments constitute original contributions of major 
significance: creation of a s'tate chapter of the 
research to prevent intra-hospital post-surgical infections at the 
participation as a 
speaker on cardiovascular education . and as a health professional in a bi-national conference; research 
to implement a in the rural community of 
and various preseQtations on coronary artery disease in multiple conventions. 
All of the above mentioned contributions either impacted a specific institution~ a local community or 
region, or specific conventions. The record does not provide sufficient detail regarding the impact of 
each of these contributions to establish that they were of major signiticance in the field. The truth is to 
(b)(6)
Page 9 . 
be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe,. 25 
I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010) citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&NDec. 77,80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Counsel further references the petitioner's research projects between 1993 and 200 I and notes the 
importance of the petitioner's area of research. The importance of the petitioner's area of research 
alone cannot establish the actual impact of her research such that it is a contribution of major 
significance in the field. While the petitioner received some recognition for some of this research, the 
record lacks evidence of its ultimate impact in the field upon being disseminated in the field. 
Counsel also asserts that the petitioner. developed and implemented cardiovascular disease preventive 
programs at the national level and references two letters from President of the 
and the 
In his September 21, 2007letter, writes: "[The petitioner] ... has done an excellent work in 
the field of Cardiovascular Prevention in . developing and implementing national and 
regional preventive programs .... " In his February 14, 2012 letter, states that: "[The 
petitioner] is a Public Health Professional of extraordinary ability, which has been demonstrated 
throughout [sic] her sustained nationally recognized achievements in the cardiovascular health 
promotion ap.d disease prevention field." These two letters primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim 
and vague claims of contributions without providing specific examples of how those contributions rise 
to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. V. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajf'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aryr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). Finally, vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify 
contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) a.ff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th 
Cir. 2010).4 . 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarlY articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director determined in his decision that the petitioner met this regulatory criterion and the AAO 
affirms the director's determination relating to this criterion. 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting 
to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
·596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
Evidence that the .alien 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). 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position m the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A criticarrole 
should. be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. 
The petitioner's performance in · this role should establish whether the role was critical for 
organizations or establishments as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations 
or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor 
precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary 
defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. "5 Dictionaries are not of 
themselves evidence, but they may· be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the 
court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893).. Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate that ·the organizations or estabiishments claimed under this criterion are marked by 
eminence, distinction, excellence, or a similar reputation. The petitioner must ·submit evidence 
satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The director in the denial decision considered evidence relating to the petitioner's respective roles at 
the the and the 
The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to provide sufficient details regarding the tasks she performed and concluded that the 
submitted evidence failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner perfo~ed in a leading or critical role in her capacity as 
a Medical Director for the and· as a Coordinator of Cardiovasular 
Disease Preventive Programs at the To substantiate 
the claims regarding the role at the counsel references a letter from 
confirming the petitioner's position as the Medical Director, and a letter 
from briefly describing the petitioner's duties. However, the letters do not provide 
sufficient details to conclude that the petitioner served in a leading or critical role for the 
organization as a whole. Specifically; the evidence does not show how the Medical Director fits 
within the overal hierarchy of the organization or explain how the petitioner impacted the 
organization in this role. 
Counsel references a document of certification from to substantiate the claim 
of a leading or critical role at the However, the 
document from _ merely states the petitioner's titles at that organization and 
provides no information regarding the petitioner's role. Counsel provides additional descriptions of 
the petitioner's work on behalf of the organizations, but as noted earlier, the assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec .. at 534; Matter of Ramirerz-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. at 506. Once again, the evidence does not show where the petitioner's roles fit within the 
overall hierarchy of the organization or how the petitioner impacted the organization within her roles. 
5 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionafy/distinguished, accessed on February 4, 2013. 
, ) -, 
(b)(6)
.. 
\ . 
Page 11 
In addition, the petitioner has failed to include evidence establishing that either the 
· are organizations that have a 
distinguished reputation. Finally, all of the evidence that the petitioner submitted on appeal in 
support of this criterion was in Spanish and while there was a translation for each of the documents, 
the petitioner failed to submit a certification of the translator's competency, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3). 
For all of the above reasons, the· petitioner has failed to establish her eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 2045(h)(3)(ix). . · 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed tp meet this criterion because she failed to submit any 
documentary evidence relating to her compensation as a Medical Director and did not include any 
documents providing comparative data with others who work in similar roles in the field. On appeal, 
counsel submits a docwrtent titled, ' j for physicians working in 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner received a significantly high remuneration for services 
relative to other physicians because the petitioner received compensation as a physician in addition to 
the compensation that she received for her administrative duties as a Medical Director. The petitioner 
needs to demonstrate that she has received significantly higher pay in comparison to other physicians 
who, like the petitioner, also held the role ofMedical Director to satisfy this criterion. Specifically, the 
petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) 
(considering professional golfer's earnings versus otherPGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v.1NS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. lli. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
Furthermore, the document showing the salary information is in Spanish and like much of the other 
evidence offered up on appeal, fails to meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3), because there is 
no accompanying certification of the translator's competence . . Therefore, the petitioner has failed to 
meet this criterion. : 
:B .. SUmmary 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page. 12 
ITI. 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 endeavo~. 
Had the peti~ioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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" 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." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence (much of which predates the petition by several years) is not indicative of a level of expertise 
consistent with the small percentage at the· very top of the field or sustained national or international 
acclaim, the· AAO need not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination.6 Rather, the proper 
conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory · requirement of three types of 
evidence. /d. at 1122, · 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 14S 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
detennination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the. Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); S C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003);,Mai'ter of Aurelio, 19 I~&-N: Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 
1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions). ·