dismissed EB-1A Case: Radiation Oncology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-J-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 6, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a radiation oncologist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )( 1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that she 
meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in per.tinent part: 
(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 ~thletics 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-J-
(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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifYing evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently employed as a post doctorate associate at the 
in a pediatric proton therapy fellowship. As the Petitioner has 
not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationallyrecognized award, she must 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The Petitioner's documentary 
evidence indicates that she edited the and authored 
scholarly articles in and 
A review of the record of proceedings also reflects that the Petitioner fulfills 
the high salary criterion under the 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Specifically, the Petitioner established 
that her salary as a radiology fellow at was high in relation to other radiology fellows. 
Accordingly, she has met at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-J-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence , that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation , making her one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. In a final merits determination , we analyze the Petitioner ' s accomplishments and weigh 
the totality of the evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received a bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery 
degree at in India in 1992. Early in her medical career, the Petitioner held 
various positions, such as medical and house officer and research fellow, at hospitals in India and the 
United Kingdom. Later, she worked as a junior oncology fellow and specialty registrar at hospitals 
in the United Kingdom. Currently, the Petitioner is a post doctorate associate at in the 
pediatric proton therapy fellowship program . As mentioned above, the Petitioner has edited 
publications, authored scholarly articles, and commanded a high fellowship salary. The Petitioner's 
achievements, however, are not reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress . H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19-; 1990). 
Although the Petitioner met the judging criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , 
an evaluation of the significance of her judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d 
at 1121-11, to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive classification. The record indicates that the Petitioner served as a co-editor for the 
on six occasions and reviewed a book, 
The Petitioner , however, did not offer evidence showing the reputation or standing of these 
publications in the field. 
In the Petitioner's field, peer review is a routine element of the process by which books or articles 
are selected for publication or for presentation at conferences. Participation in the peer review 
process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of her field. Reviewing or editing the works of others is recognized as a 
professional obligation of researchers and scientists. Normally a journal's editorial staff or a 
conference technical committee, for example , will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in 
the field who agree to review submitted papers. The publication's editorial staff or the technical 
committee may accept or reject any reviewer ' s comments in determining whether to publish , 
present, or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets 
her apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has received and completed independent 
requests for review from a substantial number of publications or conferences , served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal or publication , or chaired a technical committee for a reputable 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-J-
conference, the Petitioner has not established that she is among that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner also satisfied the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) by 
providing evidence that she published three articles in professional journals. In addition, the record 
includes abstracts and proceedings from the Petitioner's presentations at professional conferences. 
The Petitioner has not established that her publication record of three articles, as well as a small 
number of presentations, sets her apart through a "career of acclaimed work." The statute requires 
the Petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of her sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high 
standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the 
petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientists and researchers, the citation history or other 
evidence of the influence of her articles is an important indicator to determine the impact and 
recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For 
example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner would provide 
solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by 
her work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the 
Petitioner may indicate that her work has gone largely unnoticed by her field. Here, the Petitioner 
offered evidence that her article in has been cited 59 times, but she did not show that her other 
two articles, as well as her conference abstracts, have been cited by others. Although the 
article shows some interest in the Petitioner's work, she did not establish that such article citation is 
sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the top of her field. 
Regarding the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Petitioner showed that she 
commanded a high salary compared to other radiology fellows. While they may be prestigious, 
fellowships, scholarships, and other sources of competitive financial support are pursued by students 
rather than by recognized, established experts in the field. Although the Petitioner's salary was high 
/ compared to other radiology fellows, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she commanded a high 
salary in relation to other radiology oncologists reflecting "a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of .the field of endeavor." 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of her receipt of the 
for the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). She 
has not shown, however, that this fellowship indicates national or international acclaim, or reveals a 
high level of recognition for her work. Experienced experts generally do not compete for 
scholarships or fellowships, and academic awards and honors received while preparing for a 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of B-J-
vocation fall substantially short of demonstrating the required acclaim. Thus, her fellowship does 
not establish that she is one ofthe very few at the top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Under the membership criterion under 8 C.f.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner documented her 
membership with According to bylaws, membership is granted to medical and dental 
practitioners by council in accordance with its regulations. The Petitioner, however, did not 
submit regulations to demonstrate that membership requires outstanding achievements as 
judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. Thus, the Petitioner has not shown that 
her membership reflects that "her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Although the Petitioner did not meet the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), she provided recommendation letters as evidence of her eligibility. The letters 
discuss the Petitioner's skills and reiterate her experience without identifying original contributions 
of major significance in the field.' For instance, professor and director of 
clinical research at indicated that the Petitioner "has pursued 
specialized training in proton therapy beyond the basic requirement of residency training and has 
developed a rare clinical skill." did not explain how the Petitioner has used her 
skills to make original contributions of major significance in the field. Similarly, 
president of the stated that the Petitioner has a 
"unique combination of clinical skills and research abilities."· however, did not 
show that these skills and abilities constitute a major contribution to the field. 
With regard to the Petitioner's performances in a leading or critical role for organizations with a 
distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), she presented a letter from 
medical director for described the Petitioner's 
qualifications and experience but did not indicate that she performed in a leading or critical role for 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that her role as a post doctorate associate 
fellow is indicative that she is one of "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very 
top of their field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The submitted evidence for this criterion 
does not substantiate her sustained national or international acclaim. 
In summary, the Petitioner's evidence confirms that she has edited publications, authored articles, 
and worked as a fellow. Her professional accomplishments, however, are not sufficient to establish 
that she has garnered sustained national or international acclaim or that she is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. We find that the record as a whole does not 
reflect extensive documentation showing that the Petitioner's achievements have been recognized in 
the field. 
1 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
Matter of B-J-
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met her burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 l&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of B-J-, ID# 115717 (AAO Dec. 6, 2016) 
6