dismissed EB-1A Case: Radiation Oncology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WLY 27, 2023 In Re : 22669626 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one­
time achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review , 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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 , provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award) . If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that a beneficiary meets at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published 
material in certain media, and authorship of scholarly articles). 1 
Where a beneficiary 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). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary 
met the criteria relating to judging and authorship of scholarly articles, but determined that she did not 
satisfy the awards, membership, published material, and original contributions criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary meets the membership, published material, and original 
contributions criteria. 3 After reviewing all the evidence, we conclude the Petitioner has not shown 
that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's position with the Petitioner as a radiation oncology 
physician meets this criterion. The Petitioner, however, has not demonstrated that its employment 
relationship with the Beneficiary constitutes "membership" in an association or that her position 
required outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
field. 
The Petitioner also provided an email stating that the Beneficiary was "invited" to become a member 
of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group, but the record does not indicate that she 
had actually been admitted to membership in this organization at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). Regardless, the evidence presented does not establish that the International 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (indicating that USCTS officers 
should first "[a]ssess whether evidence meets regulatory criteria: Determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, which 
evidence submitted by a petitioner objectively meets the parameters of the regulatory description that applies to that type 
of evidence"). 
2 See generally id. (stating that in the final merits determination, USCTS officers should evaluate all the evidence together 
when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if a petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 The Petitioner does not claim to meet the awards criterion on appeal. 
2 
Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
In addition the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's membership in the._____...-__---,., 
------~1=·n~t"'"""ihe United Kingdom (UK), the Pediatric Radiation Oncology Society, the.L..;-----; 
1-----.-----------' Group, the American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology, the.__ _ __. 
._______.Medical Society, and thel lmeet this criterion. While the 
Petitioner provided general information about these organizations, it did not submit their constitution 
or bylaws, or other documentation showing their official membership requirements. In addition to not 
demonstrating that the aforementioned organizations require outstanding achievements of their 
members, the submitted documentation does not show that their admission to membership is judged 
by recognized national or international experts. 
For example, regarding the Beneficiary's membership in theO the Petitioner submitted only pages 
from Wikipedia about the organization. As there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited Internet site, information from Wikipedia will be accorded no evidentiary 
weight. See Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukase~, 540I F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 4 In addition, even 
if we were to consider this evidence, it indicates tha membershi is conferred u on "doctors who 
have passed the examinations for the diploma of membership of the of 
the United Kingdom, which are held jointly by all of the UK,_____~--~--____. The 
Petitioner has not shown that passing the requiredc=] medical examinations rises to the level of 
"outstanding achievements," or that the Beneficiary's admission was judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the field. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Beneficiary's "fellowship" in the~meets this criterion. The 
Petitioner resented a certificate stating that the Beneficiary was "admitted a Fellow of the I I 
The Petitioner, however, has not offered evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary's.__ _ _.fellowship required outstanding achievements or that her admission was judged 
by recognized national or international experts. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiar 's two-week fellowshi with the I,___ ____. 
University r------------'-'-""-.>..!=........,,._._-~ _________ _JFellowship to 
the UniversityL _________ -r---,_ ____J, and "Two-Year Fellowship Program in 
Pediatric and Adult Proton Therapy" at.__ _ ___,satisfy this criterion. These fellowships represent 
temporary medical training opportunities rather than membership in associations in the field. For 
4 See also information from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on July 24, 2023, and 
copy incorporated into the record of proceeding, which indicates that Wikipedia's content is subject to the following general 
disclaimer: 
WTKTPEDTA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop 
a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed 
by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate, or reliable information .... 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article 
may recently have been changed, vandalized, or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond 
with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
3 
instance, the Petitioner provided information about th ._____________ ____,Fellowship" 
which states: 'The goal of the program is to develop clinical expertise in the management of pediatric 
malignancies and technical expertise in the application of proton therapy. Fellows will be expected to 
complete a proton therapy related research project .... " Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary's fellowships required outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field. For example, regarding her.__ ___________ ____, 
Fellows~ip, the retitioner submitted information indicating that "fellowships are open to consultants 
and post Specialist Registrar Clinical Oncologists who are members or fellows of the Din 
good standing, resident in the United Kingdom, and in active clinical practice at the time of the 
award/visit." Additionally, with respect to the Beneficiary's "Two-Year Fellowship Program in 
Pediatric and Adult Proton Therapy," the Petitioner provided information from University I I 
stating: 
The pre-requisite for the fellowship is successful completion of an ACGME accredited 
residency in Radiation Oncology by the start date of the fellowship .... The application 
must include a current Curriculum Vitae and a one page personal statement articulating 
the candidate's interest in the fellowship. Three letters of recommendation from 
clinical and/or research mentors are also required, including one from the fellow's 
residency director. Exceptional international applicants who have completed a 
radiation oncology residency in the United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, Singapore, 
and Canada will be considered provided they have a valid U.S. medical license, or 
ECFMG certification for training outside the U.S. (requires completion of USMLE 1 
and USMLE 2 exams). ECFMG certification is also required for visa sponsorship, if 
applicable. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the aforementioned criteria (such as completing an oncology 
residency, active clinical practice, or medical licensure) rise to the level of "outstanding" 
achievements. Without evidence indicating that the Beneficiary's memberships require outstanding 
achievements and that admission to membership is judged by recognized national or international 
experts, the Petitioner has not established that she meets 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted scholarly research articles and reviews written 
or edited by the Beneficiary in International Neurology, Radiology and Radiotherapy of 
Craniopharyngioma, and BMJ Clinical Review. 5 The Petitioner also resented an article authored b 
the Beneficiary, entitled L-------1---------,_ __-,,--__________ __J 
which was posted on the website of._________ ___.News. 6 The aforementioned medical 
articles discuss subject matter other than the Beneficiary. As this material is not "about" the 
5 The regulations contain a separate and distinct criterion relating to "authorship of scholarly articles" in professional 
publications at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that the Beneficiary has akeady satisfi,....ed_.______ __, 
6 The Petitioner has not presented evidence (such as readership statistics) showing that.__ ______ ___.News' 
website is a form of major media. 
4 
Beneficiary, it does not constitute published material about her for purposes of this criterion. The 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "published material about the alien." 
See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding 
that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article about the Beneficia m agazine, entitled 
" The author of this article is L...----------------------------~not identified as required by this criterion and the material appears in the "Advertising Feature" section 
of the magazine. Marketing materials created for promoting one's services are generally not 
considered sufficient to meet this criterion. 7 Nor did the Petitioner offer comparative circulation 
statistics or other evidence to demonstrate thatl !Magazine is a professional or major trade 
publication or other type of major media. 8 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that the Beneficiary discussed "Breast 
Cancer Treatment Options" on the.__________ _.News Morning Show's health segment. 
The Petitioner has not shown that this televised segment was about the Beneficiary as opposed to 
breast cancer treatment options available to Florida women. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
presented evidence (such as viewership statistics) showing that the I INews 
Morning Show is a form of major media. Without evidence that the Beneficiary has been the subject of 
material about her in professional or major trade publications or major media, the Petitioner has not 
established that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's research articles and book 
chapters, citation evidence for her published work, and letters of support from her colleagues in the 
field. The Director considered this documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's work constituted original contributions of major significance in the field. For 
the reasons discussed below, we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has a beneficiary made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the 
field. 9 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 in the field. 
7 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2, Appendices, "Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of 
Reviewing Evidence" (stating that marketing materials created for the purpose of selling a beneficiary's products or 
promoting their services are not generally considered to be published material about the beneficiary). 
8 See generally id. (indicating that evidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other 
major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation 
statistics). 
9 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2, Appendices, "Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of 
Reviewing Evidence." 
5 
In the appeal brief: the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's "formal training and education in proton 
beam therapy atl I' "real-life experience in both adult and pediatric proton therapy," completion 
of "a dedicated pediatric and adult proton therapy fellowship," and treatment of "more than 200 
children suffering from cancer" meet this criterion. While the evidence indicates that the Beneficiary 
is skilled in her field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her education, training, and experience 
in proton therapy constitute original scientific contributions of major significance in the field of 
radiation oncology. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary reviewed material for Oncology at a Glance 
and "has edited at least ten British Medical Journal (BMJ) Clinical Review books from 2015 to 2019 
on subjects ranging from clinical oncology, hematology, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology." 
The Beneficiary's manuscript reviews and editorial service, however, were considered under the 
judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), a criterion that she has already fulfilled. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not establish how performing peer review or editorial work for a journal rises to the 
level of an original contribution of major significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not show, 
for example, how the Beneficiary's work significantly impacted or influenced the field in a major way 
beyond Oncology at a Glance or the BMJ. 
The Petitioner also indicates that the Beneficiary has published articles and conference abstracts in 
International Neurology; International Journal ofParticle Therapy; Drugs; International Journal of 
Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP); Clinical Oncology; Basic Research and Clinical 
Aspects ofAdamantinomatous Craniopharyngioma; Lung Cancer; and European Journal of Cancer 
Supplements. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that publication of articles in well ranked journals 
and presentation of work at reputable medical conferences, such as Proceedings of the American 
Society/or Radiation Oncology 56th Annual Meeting (ASTRO), inevitably demonstrate that the field 
considers the research and work to be an original contribution of major significance. Moreover, a 
publication that bears a high ranking or impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate; it 
does not show an author's influence or the impact of research on the field or that every article published 
in a distinguished journal or conference automatically indicates a scientific contribution of major 
significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner has not established that publication in the aforementioned 
journals and conferences alone demonstrates a contribution of major significance in the Beneficiary's 
field. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), 
aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
The record includes the Beneficiary's Google Scholar profile showing that her research articles have 
received 73 cumulative citations. The information from Goo le Scholar further indicated that the 
Beneficiary's two hi hest cited articles, entitled' 
2007 and' 
(2015), each received 69 and 3 citations, 
~r-es_p_e_c-ti-v-el_y_._H_e_r-n-ex_t_t_w_o_h-ig_h_e_s_t-c1-.te-d-art-ic-1-es-,-e-n-ti~tled '~-----~' (2016) and 1 I 
~I--------------~I (2017) received one citation each. 10 .___ ______. 
10 The Petitioner did not specify how many citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations by the 
Beneficiary or her coauthors. 
6 
Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a beneficiary's 
research or written work. However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the number of 
citations for any of the Beneficiary's published articles is commensurate with contributions of major 
significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance or relevance of the 
citations to the Beneficiary's articles. Nor has the Petitioner shown that these citations are unusually 
high in the Beneficiary's field or how they compare to other articles that the field views as having 
been majorly significant. Without comparative statistical evidence indicating the frequency at which 
other articles in the Beneficiary's field are cited, for example, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
the number of citations received by her published and presented work is indicative of a contribution 
of major significance in the field. 
Additionally, the Petitioner points to recommendation letters from experts in the field provided in 
support of the Beneficiary. 11 These references discussed the Beneficiary's advanced radiation 
oncology training, as well her research relating to oncology and proton therapy, but their statements 
do not demonstrate that her original work is of major significance in the field. As discussed below, 
the reference letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate 
corroborating documentation, to show the nature of specific "original contributions" that the 
Beneficiary has made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance. 
For example, Dr. M-W-W-, a professor of radiation oncology at T-J-U-, stated that the Beneficiary 
"pursued specialized training in proton therapy beyond the basic requirement of residency training and 
has developed a rare clinical skill in a highly specialized field of proton therapy." Dr. M-W-W-
indicated that the Beneficiary completed a fellowship in pediatric and adult proton therapy at I I 
"in I I the first such program in the world." Dr. M-W-W- also noted that the Beneficiary 
has "authored original scientific research studies" published in International Journal of Particle 
Therapy" and presented at ASTRO, but she did not explain how this work has affected the field in a 
substantial way or otherwise constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. We recognize 
that research must add information to the pool of knowledge in some way in order to be accepted for 
publication, presentation, fonding, or academic credit, but not every research study that broadens 
knowledge in a particular field constitutes a contribution of major significance in that field. 
Dr. M-W-W- farther mentioned the Beneficiar 's editorial work for BMJ Clinical Review and 
authorship of a book chapter inI I The Petitioner._,_h_o_w_e_v_e_r_,h_a_s_n-ot-of_Ii_e-re-d-c1-.ta-t-io-n-in_fi_o_rm_a-t1-.o_n_o_r_o_t_h_e_r_e_v-id_e_n_c_e__, 
showing that the Beneficiary's particular book chapter constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in proton therapy. Nor does the evidence support a determination that performing 
editorial services for BMJ Clinical Review rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in 
the field. 
In addition, Dr. S-A-, the Petitioner's medical director, stated that the Beneficiary's "research has 
helped ... refine and define the radiation tolerance of critical hearing organs such as the cochlea. The 
guidance derived from this data is critical in hearing preservation in the long-term survivors of 
childhood cancer patients helping improve their survivorship and quality of life." He indicated that 
the Beneficiary "was invited to present this work as a podium presentation at the International Pediatric 
11 While we discuss a sampling of the letters of support, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
Radiation Oncology Cancer Society Conference at ~---------_.Hospital ... in D 
2017." Dr. S-A- further noted that the Beneficiary's "presentation generated the expected enthusiasm 
and has established [the Beneficiary] as an outstanding researcher," but he did not offer specific 
examples indicating that her presented findings on radiation tolerance have influenced the field of 
radiation oncology to the extent that they are of major significance in her field. 
Furthermore, Dr. B-H-, a consultant clinical oncologist at C-C-C-, asserted that the Beneficiary has 
"authored several impactful research publications and oral presentations international conferences." 
While Dr. B-H- listed examples of the Beneficiary's published and presented work, he did not 
elaborate on how her specific research and findings have been widely utilized by other radiation 
oncologists or have otherwise affected proton cancer therapies at a level indicative of contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The record includes additional recommendation letters from Drs. R-L-R-, W-P-, and N-J-. Although 
these remaining letters praise the Beneficiary's work as a radiation oncologist, they do not demonstrate 
how her contributions are "of major significance in the field." Instead, the letters reference the 
importance of the Beneficiary's works as indicated by their publication in professional journals and 
presentation at medical conferences. As discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown through the 
Beneficiary's citation history or other evidence that her work, once published or presented, has been 
of major significance in the field. While the selection of the Beneficiary's articles in professional 
journals and conferences verifies the originality of her work, it does not necessarily reflect that her 
research and findings are considered of major significance. 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact that the Beneficiary's work has had in the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how 
a beneficiary's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. 12 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add 
value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 13 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. 
Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without sufficient information and evidence 
demonstrating that her work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field, the 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documentation that the Beneficiary meets 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. 
Accordingly, we reserve the final merits determination. 14 Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
12 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2, Appendices, "Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of 
Reviewing Evidence." 
13 Id. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
14 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
8 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Beneficiary 
has the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"); see also Hamal v. 
Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of the Beneficiary's 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 
Beneficiary has garnered sustained national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9