dismissed EB-1A Case: Radiation Biology And Neuroscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9433786 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 5, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher focusing his work in the areas ofradiation biology, neuroscience, and Gulf 
War Illness (GWI), 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 while the Petitioner 
submitted sufficient evidence to meet the initial evidentiary requirement, meeting at least three of the 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the record did not establish that he had sustained national or 
international acclaim or was one of the small percentage at the top of his field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to consider evidence in the record and applied incorrect legal 
standards. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of 
. He received his Ph.D. in pharmaceutical sciences from I !University 
._1-·n_2_0_0_8_,_a_n_d_c_o_m_p_l_et_e_.d his initial postdoctoral training a~ !university before joiningc=J He 
intends to continue to pursue his research in the areas of radiation biology, neuroscience, and Gulf 
War Illness(GWI). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his authorship of scholarly articles, judge of the 
work of others in his field, and published material about him and his work in major media. However, 
he did not explain in his decision what evidence supported these findings, or explain why the evidence 
supporting two other criteria was found to be insufficient. After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we disagree with the Director's finding regarding the criterion pertaining to published material 
about him, and withdraw that portion of his decision. Further, we agree that the Petitioner meets the 
requirements of the other two criteria, but find that he does not meet the requisite third criterion to 
satisfy the initial evidence requirement of the extraordinary ability classification. 
2 
We note that the Petitioner has submitted new evidence along with his appeal brief Where, as here, 
a Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity 
to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). As the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) which included an explanation of 
the deficiencies in the record and a list of evidence that could be submitted to overcome those 
deficiencies, we will not consider this new evidence in our decision. 
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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
As noted above, the Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, but did not indicate his reason 
for that finding or provide an analysis of the evidence submitted. The record includes several media 
articles published on the websites of organizations and publications such as Science Daily, NBC News, 
The Scientist Magazine, The Economic Times, NDTV and The Hindzt1. These articles report on 
scholarly articles written by the Petitioner and his colleagues about the effects of radiation on the brain 
and central nervous system, due to either space travel or cancer treatment. While several of these 
articles identify the Petitioner as a researcher who contributed to the research results discussed, and 
some include the same quote from him, none of these articles are about him, but are instead about the 
research and its conclusions and implications. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet 
this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe 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). Accordingly, 
we disagree with the Director and withdraw his finding that the Petitioner meets this 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 specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The evidence establishes that the Petitioner has served as a peer reviewer for articles submitted to 
journals such as Radiation Research, Food, and Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals. In 
addition, he serves as an editor for the journals Innovare Journal of Health Science and Inda Global 
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. We therefore agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he 
made original contributions, but that they 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. 
1 We note that several of these publications carried a Reuters article with little or no modification. 
3 
The Petitioner claims to have made original scientific contributions of major significance focused in 
radiation biology, neuroscience and GWI treatment, and submitted ten reference letters in support of 
these claims. 2 On appeal, he asserts that the Director failed to give adequate consideration to these 
letters. Upon review, we first note that several of the letters share a common structure, including 
separate, titled sections devoted to the writer's opinion of whether the Petitioner meets certain 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and include frequent repetition of the regulatory 
language under these criteria. For example, a letter froml lof0 includes 
an initial section titled [ The Petitioner J is a scientist with extraordinaj ability who is currently playing 
a critical role in our laboratory at the University J~------~ and a second section titled [The 
Petitioner J has made innovative and original scientific contributions o ma ·or si ni zcance in co nitive 
neuroscience and radiation biolo'jc'.. Similarly, a letter from.__ ___________ __. of the 
University I contains several section headings, including [The Petitioner J has 
made original and novel research contributions of major significance in the field of ionizing radiation, 
neuroscience, galactic cosmic rays, Gulf War Illness, cognitive and mood deficits, epilepsy, and PTSD, 
and [The Petitioner's J research contributions have national or even global implications within the 
fields of his endeavor, as evidenced by his publications in high-impact professional journals with 
international circulation. Other reference letters in the record replace the section headings with 
sentences in bold at the beginning of some paragraphs, also repeating the regulatory language. 
As a general concept, when an alien has provided affidavits from different persons that contribute to 
the alien's eligibility claim, but the language and structure contained within the affidavits is strikingly 
similar, the trier of fact may treat those similarities as a basis for questioning the claims of the 
alien. See Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). When 
affidavits contain such similarities, it is reasonable to infer that the alien who submitted the strikingly 
similar documents is the actual source from where the suspicious similarities derive. See Mei Chai Ye 
v. US. Dept. o_f Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007). Here, the similar structure of these reference 
letters strongly indicates that the Petitioner or his representative is the source of the content of these 
letters. We farther note that several of the reference letters describe the Petitioner's research as having 
"been reduced to" papers which were published in journals, a phrase which also appears in the 
Petitioner's own written statement. As such, the evidentiary value of these reference letters m 
demonstrating the significance of the Petitioner's contributions is greatly diminished. 3 
In addition, the letters include frequent repetition of the regulatory language of this (as well as other) 
criteria beyond the section headings and bolded sentences, but do not adequately explain how the 
Petitioner's research has led to contributions of major significance. I l's letter describes, 
in great detail, the Petitioner's research on the cognitive effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy 
("chemo brain"), as well as the damaging effects of galactic cosmic rays on the central nervous system, 
and indicates that this work has potential applications to the improvement of cancer patient health and 
2 All of the reference letters in the record have been thoroughly reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in 
this decision. 
3 We also note that several of the reference letters provide historical and circulation or viewership information about some 
of the media outlets which have published articles about the Petitioner's research, and others include data and graphics 
from third-party sources about the level of attention to certain of the Petitioner's published articles, information which 
appears in separate evidence in the record discussed below. The appearance of this outside, second or third hand 
information in the letters provides additional indication as to the source of the content of these letters, and fmiher dimishes 
their evidentiary value. 
4 
to minimizing health risks during space travel. However, we note that despitq I having 
supervised and collaborated with the Petitioner atc=J for approximately eight years prior to the filing 
of this petition, he does not provide insights into the Petitioner's role in and contribution to these 
research projects, stating only that he "has had an impact on my productivity in research" and "has 
worked on several projects." In addition, in discussing the significance of these contributions, the 
letter refers to the prestige of the journals in which this work has been published, and the attention it 
has received in popular media. But we will not assume that all papers published in prestigious 
scientific journals have impact or influence on their respective fields, and I ldoes not 
explain how attention to the Petitioner's research in popular or general media reflects a significant 
contribution to the scientific field. 
Similarly,.__ ______ ___, who also collaborated with the Petitioner at D describes four 
different research projects in which the Petitioner participated, including his development of a 
computer model to assess the effects of radiation on the brain. Much like in I ts letter, 
he describes the potential impact of this research on the field, indicating that the model "will be 
extremely valuable for accurately and efficiently interpreting experimental data ... " He also points to 
the prestige of the journals in which some of the Petitioner's papers have been published, as well as 
media coverage of the Petitioner's research on the effects of cranial irradiation, stating that coverage 
"by mainstream media outlets and professional publications ... is evidence of the major significance 
of his original research contributions in the neuroscience field." However, repetition of the regulatory 
language here and in other reference letters in the record 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), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *l, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 
1997). I !does not indicate that the Petitioner's research has remarkably impacted 
or influenced the field, or has otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
Another reference letter was submitted by.__ ________ __. ofl IUniversityl~-~ 
who states that he is familiar with the Petitioner's work on the effects of low dose radiation on neural 
stem and precursor cells, and cited to the Petitioner's article published in the journal Antioxidants and 
Redox Signal. However, he does not explain why he cited to this paper or how it affected his research, 
but instead describes several of the Petitioner's other research projects, some of which were also 
described in the reference letters previously discussed. I lalso focuses on the prestige of 
the journals in which the Petitioner's work has been published, and the coverage of research projects 
in which the Petitioner was involved by major media outlets. But he does not explain how this major 
media coverage shows a contribution to other researchers in the field, rather than serving as an 
indicator of popular interest in the subject matter. 
.__ _________ ___, also submitted a reference letter on behalf of the Petitioner, in which she 
initially focuses on his research on GWI. She explains that the Petitioner exposed rats to low doses of 
chemicals to which Gulf War veterans had been exposed and determined that combined exposure to 
these chemicals affected both mood and cognitive abilities. I lalso indicates that the 
Research Advisory Committee (RAC), created by Congress in 1998, "adopted [the Petitioner's] results 
in understanding the Gulf War illness in veterans" and "frequently referenced [the Petitioner's] 
publication in detail in its public report." However, the record does not include a report from the RAC 
to substantiate this statement. A document titled The Gu(f War Illness Landscape was submitted, 
which was created by the Department of Defense Gulf War Illness Research Program. It notes that a 
5 
paper authored by the Petitioner was one of several reporting the effects of exposure to a low dose 
chemical combination in rodents. But this single citation does not show that the Petitioner's work was 
"frequently referenced," and this report does not otherwise demonstrate that it has been of major 
significance in the understanding, diagnosis or treatment of GWI. 
All of the reference letters discussed above, as well as additional letters not discussed, mention the 
total number of papers authored and coauthored by the Petitioner, and the total number of citations to 
these papers by other scientists in their own published work. However, although the total number of 
citations to the Petitioner's published work is one of several factors that may be appropriately weighed 
in a final merits determination to determine whether he is one of the small percentage at the top of his 
field, he has not demonstrated the value of this overall citation data in assessing whether the individual 
contributions he has made to his field have been of major significance. 
The Petitioner also submitted data about the rate of citation to his individual papers, from several third­
party sources, which he asserts on appeal was not considered by the Director in his decision. The first 
set of data the Petitioner refers to is the Altmetric Attention Score, which the evidence indicates "is 
calculated based on two main sources of online attention: social media and mainstream news media." 
The Petitioner notes that three of the journals in which his papers have been published "repeatedly 
report that [the Petitioner's] scientific papers published in the journals are one of the top viewed/read 
papers or have received one of the highest Altmetric Attention Scores," and submits evidence 
regarding six of his papers. On review of this evidence, it appears to be more accurate to state that 
these journals provide access on their websites to this and other data from third arties. The descri tion 
of this data presented along with the Petitioner's co-authored article .__ ______ -I 
'----------------' ' which was published in the journal Scientific Reports in states 
that this score "is calculated based on two main sources of online attention: social media and 
mainstream news media." As mentioned in the Director's decision, this attention includes mentions 
in news articles, blogs, and Twitter, Facebook and Google+ posts. While the Petitioner asserts that 
this evidence shows national or international acclaim and that he's one of the small percentage at the 
top of his field, an argument more appropriate in a final merits analysis, he does not explain or 
demonstrate that even very high attention in social media and mainstream news media is indicative of 
the subject research being of major significance to other scientists conducting radiation biology, 
neuroscience, and GWI research. 
Another set of data presented by the Petitioner is intended to compare the rate and frequency of 
citations to his articles to those of other scientists in his field. In response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE), he submitted tables from Clarivate Analytics showing "baseline" citation rates in a 
small number of broad fields for the years 2008 through 2018, as well percentiles showing citation 
figures for the same fields and years. The Petitioner states, for example, that a paper which was 
published in the journal Experimental Neurology in~ was cited by other researchers on 14 
occasions, and notes that this data indicates that that "is 16.66 times higher than the average." 
However, although a paper which has been cited on 14 occasions in one year has received more 
attention from other researchers than a paper cited only once in that same time period, we cannot infer 
from this data that the research described in the former paper has therefore made a contribution of 
major significance in a particular field. 
6 
Additional data from Clarivate Analytics indicates that the number of citations to some of the 
Petitioner's published papers places them in the top 10% or top 1 % for the field of "neuroscience and 
behavior" in comparison with other papers published in the same year. We first note that the citation 
figures for papers published in 2017 and 2018 do not show a significant difference between the average 
and those ranked in the top 10% (3 and 9 citations, respectively, in 2017.) Similar to our analysis of 
the data referenced above, we will not assume that a paper cited on 9 occasions in one year has made 
a contribution to the field which is of noticeably greater significance than one which has been cited 3 
times in the same period. More importantly, although these figures indicate that some of the articles 
co-authored by the Petitioner have drawn greater interest from other researchers than the average 
published paper in the field, he has not shown that this interest is sufficient to demonstrate that the 
research reported in these papers constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field. 
The Petitioner also focused on citations to his work in review articles. However, other than providing 
information regarding the authors of the review articles and the journals in which they were published, 
he does not explain the significance of the review articles or the citation of his work by those articles. 
Further, although the Petitioner asserts that these reviews comment on or highlight his work, in most 
cases his work is reported along with that of other research groups who published similar research 
findings. In his appeal brief: the Petitioner describes a similar conclusion in the Director's decision 
as representing an "exclusivity" requirement which is not found in the regulations, but this was not 
presented as a requirement by the Director, nor do we do so here. Rather, we are evaluating the extent 
to which the Petitioner's work is commented upon or highlighted as he asserts. 
· in Januar One example of a review article in the record was ublished in Nature Reviews Neurolo 
I I and is titled~--------------------------~ 
I t' This article cites to three of the Petitioner's articles in its opening section. For instance, in 
citing a paper co-authored by the Petitioner, it indicates that it was one of three papers which defined 
the term "early" as ~---------------------------~' In 
another section, the review paper cites another of the Petitioner's articles as one of three identifying 
the brain structures most commonly affected by radiation treatment. While these citations indicate 
that the authors of the review paper relied in part upon the Petitioner's work, they do not support the 
assertion that they highlight his work or provide commentary that sets it apart as particularly 
noteworthy or impactful. 
For all of the reasons given above, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
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 Petitioner submitted evidence that he has coauthored more than 40 articles which have been 
published in scientific journals. 4 As such, we agree with the Director and find that he meets this 
criterion. 
4 The Director found a discrepancy between the number of aiticles the Petitioner claimed to have authored and the number 
as evidenced in the record. On review, we note that the record includes sufficient documentation of the Petitioner's articles, 
and withdraw this finding by the Director. 
7 
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) 
While the Petitioner did not address this criterion on appeal, he did submit evidence in response to the 
Director's RFE. As the Director determined that the Petitioner otherwise met the initial evidence 
requirement, he did not provide an analysis of the Petitioner's qualification under this criterion in his 
decision. However, because we have withdrawn the Director's finding regarding published material 
about the Petitioner, we will now analyze the claims and evidence provided in his response to the RFE. 
As we noted when considering the evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of 
others, he serves as an editor for the journals Innovare Journal of Health Science (IJHS) and Indo 
Global Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (IGJPS). Regarding his role for IGJPS, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence that he was named as the journal's! I editor for the United States in 
I 12018. A letter from the journal's editor-in-chief states that in this role he "review(s) original 
papers in the subject of Pharmacy and Pharmacology submitted by other scientists for publication in 
this journal." In addition, the editor-in-chief indicates that asl I editor, the Petitioner provides 
guidelines to authors in submitting manuscripts, as well as guidelines "regarding acceptable practices 
for sharing experimental results and information." He also establishes policies on conflict of interest 
for authors, reviewers and editors. After review, we find that this evidence establishes that the 
Petitioner plays a leading role for IGJPS. 
However, the Petitioner must also establish that IGJPS has a distinguished reputation. The editor-in­
chief described the journal in his letter, stating that the journal had been in publication for more than 
seven years, and that according to Google Scholar it had an "h-index" of 19 and "il0 index" of 44. 
However, the letter does not explain the meaning of these values, or provide context to demonstrate 
that the journal has distinguished itself among other scientific publications. The Petitioner also 
includes information from the journal's website, but this material simply describes its focus in the 
areas of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. It does not establish that the journal has earned a 
distinguished reputation. 
Regarding IJMS, the Petitioner provided a copy of a page from the journal's website which lists him 
asl I The page indicates that the editorial board consists of an editor-in­
chiet: an associate editor, the two assistant editors, and twelve editors. A letter from the publisher of 
this journal states that the Petitioner is responsible to maintain "the smooth flow of manuscripts from 
the submission to publication teams to the editor." He verifies that articles comply with the journal's 
manual of style, and assists the editor-in-chief in finalizing author guidelines. He also assigns 
manuscripts to reviewers, and makes the decision regarding acceptance for publication. As with 
IGJPS, we find that the Petitioner plays a leading role for IJMS. 
As evidence of the reputation of IJMS, the Petitioner submitted pages from the publisher's website 
about the journal. This evidence indicates that it is a peer-reviewed, bimonthly open access journal 
that has been in publication since 2013. It also provides information about the publisher, and a list of 
journals that it publishes. However, it does not include information to show that IJMS has a 
distinguished reputation among scientific journals. 
8 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he agreed to serve on Os Council onl I 
~--------,;====.---~ j 1- This evidence indicates that he is one of several faculty 
members of thel I and that it is responsible to "advise the Chancellor and the Division on issues 
in the areas of teaching, student life and welfare, and intramural and intercollegiate athletics." It does 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner plays a leading or critical role for the I ~ or that the council 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, after review of this evidence, we find that it does not establish that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
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. 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 of his 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 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9