dismissed EB-1A Case: Radiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12092277 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a radiologist, 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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 criteria 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a physician specializing in musculoskeletal radiology, interventional radiology, and 
ultrasound. He trained at various medical schools in India and the United States, and is now a board 
certified radiologist. Since 2012, he has worked forl I I t 1 
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 Petitioner initially claimed to have met seven criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary criteria, numbered (iv), (vi), 
and (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria numbered (ii), 
(v), and (ix). The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding criterion (iii), 
relating to published material. (In initially claiming to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner did not submit 
1 In 2014,LJ filed an immigrant petition seeking a different classification on the Petitioner's behalf. That petition was 
approved in 2015. 
2 
or identify any published material in the record that names him.) We therefore consider the Petitioner to 
have abandoned that criterion. 2 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfies 
the criteria numbered (iv) and (vi), and we further conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied criterion 
(ix). We will discuss the remaining criteria below. As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies 
three criteria, we will also evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination further below. 
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 documents membership in seven medical associations, and asserts that they require 
outstanding achievements of their members. As supporting references, the Petitioner identifies the 
websites of some of these associations, thereby introducing them into the record. For others, the Petitioner 
submits copies of the bylaws. The website of the I I does not address 
membership requirements at all. The materials from other associations do not list requirements beyond 
board certification, experience, member sponsorship (in some instances), and payment of dues or 
application fees. 
The Petitioner asserts that "[b ]oard certification is a demanding process," and therefore any membership 
that requires board certification is a qualifying membership, but the Petitioner has not established that 
board certification is an outstanding achievement rather than a credential with rigorous requirements. The 
Petitioner also does not establish the percentage ofradiologists with board certification. This information 
is crucial because if most radiologists are board certified, then the Petitioner cannot credibly assert that 
board certification is a rare or special distinction in the specialty. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director improperly requested "information to establish that 
the individuals who review prospective members' applications are recognized as national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields." This request, however, is wholly consistent with the regulatory 
requirement that members' achievements be 'judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields." We do not accept the Petitioner's contention that those who review 
membership applications are nationally recognized by virtue of being board certified radiologists. 
The Petitioner states: "Being board certified in radiology is considered an outstanding achievement in 
the medical field," but does not corroborate this claim. The Petitioner also states: "Out of many medical 
doctors in the world, only a few percentages [sic] are board certified in radiology." This assertion is true, 
but only because most "medical doctors" are not radiologists and therefore would have no reason to 
2 See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 T&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att:v 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). 
3 
pursue board certification in radiology. One's choice of specialty is not intrinsically an outstanding 
achievement. Furthermore, at other points in the record, the Petitioner asserts that his field is radiology, 
rather than the broader "medical field." The inconsistent definition of what constitutes his field further 
prevents the Petitioner from making a consistent case for eligibility. 
The Petitioner has not shown that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Petitioner has published four scholarly articles. He states that these articles "are of major significance 
because the articles document work that is first of its kind." This assertion is not persuasive. The 
regulation requires contributions to be both "original" and "of major significance." The latter clause 
would be redundant if originality (i.e., being "first of its kind") inherently implied major significance. 
Furthermore, the Director acknowledged that these articles satisfy a separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Originality appears to be a cornerstone requirement of scholarly publications. 3 The 
Petitioner has not shown otherwise. Therefore, by the Petitioner's reasoning, most published scholarly 
articles are also contributions of major significance. We will not interpret our regulations in such a 
manner that satisfaction of one criterion inherently implies satisfaction of a second; to do so would be 
contrary to the statutory demand for extensive documentation. 
Nevertheless, a particular scholarly article may contain an original contribution of major significance. 
Therefore, we will consider evidence of the impact of the Petitioner's scholarly articles. The Petitioner's 
graduate thesis concerned bronchoscopy, which produces images of the respiratory system using 
noninvasive methods such asl...-_,---__._, In letters in the record, colleagues claim that "[b ]ecause of [the 
Petitioner's] work in the field of.__ _ _. Bronchoscopy, it is now a routine noninvasive examination for 
diagnosing airway problems." To support this claim, it is not sufiicient to show thatl I bronchoscopy 
is widely used for the application discussed in the article; the Petitioner must also establish that it is widely 
used because of the Petitioner's work. This is a very important distinction, because the Petitioner does 
not claim to have invented I I bronchoscopy. The 19 documented citations do not establish that 
I lbronchoscopy is widely used for the specific clinical application described in the article, or that 
the Petitioner is largely responsible for the adoption of the technique. 
The Petitioner asserts that his "4 articles have earned unusually high numbers of citations in the context 
of radiology," and that he "has continued to publish material in his field with a steady increase in his 
citation levels over his publication history." The record does not support these claims. The assertion that 
the Petitioner "has continued to publish material" implies a fairly regular output, but three of the articles 
date from 2003-04, with no further publications until 2019, very shortly before the petition's filing date. 
3 "As defined in the academic arena, a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical 
discourse." USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form /-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
4 
The Petitioner documents 19 citations ( over 15 years) of one of his articles, and five citations of another 
( over 16 years), at the time of filing; he does not document any citations of the others. The Petitioner 
does not provide sufficient evidence to show that his articles are heavily cited in comparison to others 
relating to similar subjects. A search engine printout listing ten such articles shows an article from 2004, 
cited 32 times; an article from 2008, cited 65 times; and an article from 2013, cited 27 times. A fourth 
article shows 19 citations, the same as the Petitioner's 2004 article, but this article appeared ten years later 
and therefore accumulated the same number of citations over a substantially shorter period. This very 
small sample does not support the claim that the Petitioner's "articles have earned unusually high numbers 
of citations," but a definitive conclusion would require considerably more evidence. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion through his critical roles forOand 
thel I We disagree. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that initial exhibits N and T established the 
organizations' distinguished reputation. Exhibit N is a 2018 press release announcing□ s "three-year 
term of accreditation" relating to a particular medical procedure. The Petitioner does not submit objective 
evidence to establish that accreditation is a mark of distinction, rather than simply a matter of meeting 
certain professional standards. The Petitioner states that "this specific accreditation has only been granted 
to 1,928 out of 40,517 accreditations in over 34 years," but does not show that c=J,s accreditation is 
therefore more prestigious or otherwise distinguished than the other unspecified types of accreditation. 
The other accreditations may simply refer to other procedures. The burden is on the Petitioner to show 
thatO s accreditation is superior to, rather than simply different than, other types of accreditation. The 
Petitioner has not met this burden. 
The Petitioner also contends thatc=J "is one of the highest-ranked U.S. radiology center[s] outside of 
the continental U.S." Apart from being an unsubstantiated assertion, this description necessarily excludes 
most of the radiology centers in the United States. The Petitioner does not establish the number of U.S. 
radiology centers outside the continental United States, or cite any source that ranks them. 
Exhibit T is a letter from the executive director of the C7 stating that the Petitioner "has been a very 
active member" of the organization, which is '(omplrise[ d] of medical doctors and allied health care 
providers." This letter does not establish that the has a distinguished reputation in comparison with 
other state and territorial medical associations of its kind. The word "distinguished" is inherently 
comparative; status as a territorial-level medical association does not inherently convey distinction. The 
Petitioner has not established that thel lhas a national or international reputation, which is vital in the 
context of establishing national or international acclaim for a final merits determination. 
In the absence of evidence thatc=Jand theD have distinguished reputations, we need not consider 
the separate question of whether the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for those 
organizations. The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
5 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner earned a "base salary" much lower than his total compensation, 
but this conclusion was erroneously derived from pay receipts that subtracted paid leave from hours 
worked. Paid leave is not a fringe benefit in excess of base salary. The total pay shown on the pay receipts 
is consistent with the salary stated in a contract in the record. That total pay, in tum, is substantially higher 
than the median salary shown in data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We conclude, therefore, that 
the Petitioner has commanded a high salary. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained national or international acclaim and that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 4 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
In the final merits determination, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had satisfied the letter of 
three regulatory criteria, but determined that the evidence submitted under those criteria does not establish 
sustained acclaim or constitute extensive documentation ofrecognition of his achievements. The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner's judging work consisted mainly of routine peer review, and that the 
Petitioner had not shown the impact of his published scholarly articles. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his judging activity "is credible, probative and consistent with the 
finding that [he] has a career of acclaimed work in radiology." The Petitioner notes his service on the 
editorial board of the I !Medical Association Journal. The documentation of this service takes the 
form of email messages asking him to perform peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication; the 
Director noted that peer review of this kind is routine in the field, rather than a hallmark of acclaim. Those 
messages are dated after the petition's filing date, and thus do not show that the Petitioner had performed 
this function prior to filing the petition. Furthermore, the record does not show that the Journal (which 
published only one issue before the filing djte) en~oys a level of prestige such that membership on its 
editorial board indicates recognition beyond 
The Petitioner's other documented participation as a judge has been routine and local, consisting of 
faculty review of student work and a peer review program at ~ in which "each radiologist reviews 
other radiologists' work every quarter." Review at this level is neither contingent upon nor reflective of 
sustained national or international acclaim. The Petitioner acknowledges that "[g]enerally, an Assistant 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9 (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
G 
Professor [at a] medical school" is "required to assess and judge student coursework." It does not follow 
that every assistant professor is thereby nationally or internationally acclaimed, or has reached the top of 
the field. The Petitioner, on whom the burden of proof rests, has not shown that he engaged in judging 
activity beyond the routine duties inherent in those positions. 
In the denial notice, the Director referred directly to only one of the Petitioner's scholarly articles. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that his four articles "demonstrated by preponderance of evidence that [the 
Petitioner] has a career of acclaimed work in radiology." A researcher might achieve acclaim through 
publication of scholarly articles, but the existence of those articles does not inherently establish that 
acclaim. The Petitioner has not established that only acclaimed radiologists have produced published 
work, and the Petitioner has not provided evidence that would meaningfully distinguish his articles from 
those of others in the field. Most of the Petitioner's published articles derive from a time when the 
Petitioner was completing his own medical training. 
The Petitioner contends that his published work reflects acclaim in the field, but the various arguments 
offered to support this proposition are not persuasive. For example, the Petitioner notes that he was a co­
author of "the I !Medical Journal's first article ever," and contends that this "is proof that his 
participation exceeds that of other researchers or reflects sustained acclaim." The Petitioner does not 
adequately explain this conclusion. There is no presumption of distinction for the inaugural issue of a 
new journal which, by definition, has no prior history of impact or influence on the field. The Petitioner 
does not establish that the appearance of the new journal attracted significant attention outside! I 
The Petitioner submits letters, mostly from colleagues, attesting to his skill as a physician. These 
colleagues have worked with the Petitioner, which gives them insight into his particular skills and 
activities, but does not reflect recognition at the national or international level as the statute and 
regulations demand. 
Perhaps most notably, the Governor ofLJ asserts that the Petitioner "possesses an exceptional talent." 
The Governor does not identify specific medical contributions, stating, instead, that it is difficult to recruit 
physicians to work in C7 Other individuals also assert that there is a shortage of qualified radiologists 
I I Nevertheless, addressing such a shortage is not a matter of sustained national or 
international acclaim. The local need for qualified workers is a legitimate factor in some other immigrant 
classifications, such as the one for which the Petitioner has already been approved. A priority date 
backlog in that classification is not a basis, in whole or in part, for approving :
1
other }etition in a much 
more restrictive classification. The value of the Petitioner's work for patients i is not tantamount 
to national or international acclaim. 
The record shows that the Petitioner is a competent and dedicated physician who has been very active 
within the local medical community, but it does not show that his work has attracted significant attention 
beyond the institutions where he has worked or studied, or that his most recent work has resulted in any 
discernible recognition beyond the I I Civic dedication and the possession of valuable 
skills do not amount to sustained national or international acclaim, nor do they place the Petitioner among 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields, rather than for individuals with some degree of local prominence. 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 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8