dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: SEP 2 2 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b )(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~stf-
. Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by a previous petition approval under section 203(b )(2) of the 
Act is February 9, 2011. The petitioner filed the present petition on October 10, 2012. On April 4, 
2013, the director issued the petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on July 17, 2013. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a brief with no new documentary evidence. Within the appeal, the petitioner asserts the 
director misunderstood the submitted evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary 
ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we did)," and if the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. One-time Achievement 
With regard to a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a Federal Court recently 
stated: 
The ... debate over what constitutes a "major" international award [is one] that neither party 
can hope to win. Common experience draws no line of demarcation between those awards 
that are "major" 
and those that are not. The applicable law in this case draws no clearer line, 
other than to establish that some awards are "major, international recognized award[s]" and 
others are "lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards". 8 
C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) & (3)(i). Nothing in either the INA or the regulations implementing it explains 
how USCIS or a reviewing court is to differentiate between "major" and lesser awards. In 
legislative history, Congress named the Nobel Prize as its sole example of a major, 
internationally recognized award that would by itself demonstrate "extraordinary ability." 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119 (citing 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739). No one suggests that an 
alien must win a Nobel Prize to qualify, and no one suggests that [the petitioner's] awards are 
on par with a Nobel Prize. What awards less prestigious and recognized than the Nobel Prize 
qualify as major, international awards is a question that the law does not answer. There is 
little question, moreover, that Congress felt it unnecessary and perhaps inadvisable to define 
"major" in this context. It entrusted that decision to the administrative process. 
Rijal v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) affd, 
683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, 
at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). 
The Rijal court also determined that USCIS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously if it: 
[C]onsidered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts it 
found and the choice it made. USCIS explicitly considered the awards and all of the 
evidence [the petitioner] submitted to support his claim that they were major, international 
awards. users articulated a rational connection between those facts and its conclusion that 
his awards were not "major." (evidentiary citation omitted). Another adjudicator might have 
come to a different conclusion, but that is irrelevant. Unless the court can conclude that no 
rational adjudicator would have come to that conclusion, the users did not act arbitrarily 
and capriciously. 
772 F. Supp. 2d at 1345-46 affd, 683 F.3d 1030; see also Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *5. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even lesser 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
internationally recognized awards could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which 
an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality 
of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an 
internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting 
all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be 
internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
The petitioner claims his Fellowship at the as his major, internationally recognized 
award. The petitioner provided expert letters, a list of his clinical research projects, and his 
invitation to an observational study. The director determined that fellowships are a form of financial 
support for future training or research, and that the petitioner's fellowship is not a nationally or 
internationally recognized award. On appeal, the petitioner describes the difficulty in being accepted 
in this fellowship, and asserts that only the top students are admitted. 
The petitioner's field of expertise is cardiology. The director concluded that those in this fellowship 
program are still in training and are not yet in the field. Even if the petitioner were to demonstrate 
that this particular fellowship program was considered to be in his field, and not training preparing 
him to be in his field, he did not provide evidence that that his acceptance in the 
_ _ Fellowship is internationally recognized as one of the top awards in his 
field. For example, the petitioner did not provide evidence that his acceptance in this fellowship was 
reported in major international or even national media. 
Although letters from those in the petitioner's field claim that it is an honor to be in a fellowship at the 
letters alone without corroborating evidence are insufficient to demonstrate that this 
fellowship constitutes a major, internationally recognized award. As a result, this fellowship is not 
sufficient to meet the requirements as a one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien is the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner provided invitations to present at medical conferences, awards from 
_ and letters from experts in his field. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet 
the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director ignored the 
aforementioned invitations, and that these presentations should qualify him under this criterion. 
Regarding the petitioner's invitations to present at medical conferences, he submits a letter from 
Program Director for the Fellowship Program. Dr. 
indicates within his letter: "Only leading scientists are selected to give these presentations, which are 
considered highly prestigious given the national aspects of the conferences. Selection of [the petitioner] 
to participate in these conferences is a reflection of his high accomplishments and the novel contribution 
of his work to his field." Neither Dr. nor any other expert on record, asserts that the petitioner 
received invitations to speak at these conferences a result of receiving a prize or an award. Therefore, 
the petitioner's presentations at the claimed medical conferences do not constitute prizes or awards as 
contemplated by the regulation. 
Regarding the petitioner's awards from the petitioner submitted copies of the 
awards and letters from medical field experts that discuss these and other awards that the authors assert 
the petitioner has received. The awards constitute local or institutional 
recognition rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. The petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of 
these awards, such as national or widespread coverage of the awards. A prize or an award does not 
garner national or international recognition from the competition in which it is awarded, nor is it derived 
from the individual or group that issued the award. Rather, national and international recognition 
results through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. This 
can occur through specific means; for example, through media coverage. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the preceding awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations and are 
therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. Additionally, unsupported conclusory letters from those in the petitioner's field are not 
sufficient evidence that a particular prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized. See 1756, 
Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
Regarding the remaining awards mentioned in the exoert letters, the petitioner did not provide primary 
evidence of any awards outside o1 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i) 
provides that the non~existence or unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary 
evidence does not exist, or cannot be obtained, may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only 
where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. In 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
this case, while the petitioner submitted letters, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating that primary evidence and secondary evidence do not exist or cannot be obtained. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner's fellowship at the falls substantially short 
of constituting not only a major internationally recognized award, but also a lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
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. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one association in his field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (1) that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements (in the plural) of prospective members to determine if the 
achievements are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding determination as a 
condition of eligibility for prospective membership. It is insufficient for the association itself to 
determine if the achievements were outstanding, unless nationally or internationally recognized experts 
in the petitioner's field, who represent the association, render this determination. It is also insufficient 
for the petitioner to claim that he was admitted to the association because of his outstanding 
achievements; the petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievements of all 
prospective members. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted evidence relating to this criterion within the initial filing, but did not 
address this criterion or offer additional evidence in response to the director's RFE. The director ' s 
decision indicates that although the petitioner demonstrated he was a member of associations that are 
in his field, he did not provide evidence that any of the associations require outstanding 
achievements as a condition of membership. On appeal the petitioner asserts that the director did not 
understand the evidence relating to his memberships, and that the director could not have evaluated 
the significance of the initially submitted evidence. The petitioner did not identify what evidence 
establishes that the associations of which he is a member require outstanding achievements as a 
condition of membership. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on his membership in the 
and his board certification in three medical disciplines: 
cardiology, interventional cardiology, and nuclear cardiology. As evidence 
relating to the 
petitioner's memberships, he submits certificates and support letters from ex erts in the field. Dr. 
the Head of the Department of 
erely recommends the petitioner for membership in the 
Nevertheless, Dr. asserts ·that membership selection is base on an 
individual's scholarly achievements, professional contributions and career values. These criteria are 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
not outstanding achievements in the petitioner's field. Dt Professor of Medicine 
at the _ Minnesota, indicates that the petitioner is a board member on the 
and that the exams for admittance to this board are a requirement for 
continued service on the faculty. The petitioner has not established that the minimum requirements 
for continued seJYice on the facultv are outstandim! achievements. Dr. Governor 
of the in which the petitioner was 
elected as councilor, asserts that leadership and trustworthiness led to the petitioner's successful 
election, but does not indicate that the requires outstanding achievements in the field for all of 
its members. Nor did the petitioner provide evidence to establish that an election is tantamount to 
his membership admittance being judged by recognized national or international experts in his field. 
As noted within the director's decision, the record lacks evidence of the membership requirements for 
any of the associations claimed on appeal. We will not presume exclusive membership requirements 
from the general reputation of a given association, as the association's reputation may derive from its 
size, the number of symposiums it hosts or other factors independent of the exclusive nature of its 
membership. The petitioner asserts stringent membership requirements within the appellate brief; 
however, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Additionally, a license or certification to practice in a particular profession or occupation is a criterion 
for a lesser immigrant classification under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
The record does not contain the bylaws or other official documentation of the association's membership 
criteria; thus, the petitioner has not established that the memberships are qualifying. Moreover, even if 
we accepted the information in the letters, they do not attest to requirements for outstanding 
achievements. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of this criterion 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field 
under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The petitioner claimed to meet this criterion for the first time in response to the RFE. The petitioner's 
appellate brief only references his interview. The director determined that 
the nterview did not meet the requirements of this criterion, and that the petitioner did not submit 
evidence demonstrating that the article from newspaper enjoyed a national or 
international reach sufficient to constitute a form of major media. The record supports the director's 
findings with respect to 
The evidence relating to the petitioner's radio interview does not bear a source; however, the 
cover letter to the RFE response reflects that the interview occurred on February 11, 2013, which 
postdates the petitioner's petition filing date of October 10, 2012? A petitioner must establish the 
elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). A petition 
may not be approved if the petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become 
eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Additionally, while the material is about the petitioner and relating to his work in the field, the petitioner 
did not provide evidence indicating whether the transcript of his interview with only broadcast 
on the local channel or whether it also appeared on the national broadcast. Publications with only 
a regional reach are not generally considered to be major media and the petitioner has not established 
this publication is a professional or major trade publication as required by the regulation. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion because the 
petitioner submitted only invitations to serve as a peer-reviewer, with no evidence that he actually 
served in this role. On appeal, the petitioner references a facsimile from Scholar One Manuscripts 
that pertains to a completed review. On appeal, the petitioner notes that his name and facsimile 
number appear at the top of this qualifying evidence, and he asserts that this is sufficient to 
demonstrate that he was the individual who performed the manuscript review. The entity that 
3 The radio station's website 
htt : 
into the record of proceeding. 
confirms the interview occurred on February 11, 2013. See 
ccessed on August 12, 2014, a copy of which is incorporated 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEC/S/01:1 
Page 10 
drafted the document did not print the petitioner's name on the provided evidence. The only 
indication on this evidence that bears any relation to the petitioner is at the top of the page where the 
facsimile machine printed his name in addition to other information. This limited information is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner actually served as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an allied field. 
The petitioner also asserts that his experience as faculty at various medical schools and his 
appointment as a Chief Resident should also be considered under this criterion. The petitioner 
asserts within the appellate brief that he was called upon to instruct students, to grade them on their 
class work and their clinical training, to evaluate their performance on their in-service exams, and to 
participate in teaching and evaluating the performance of prospective physicians, graduate 
physicians and medical students. 
The petitioner's position as Chief Resident was with 
The petitioner did not submit evidence that demonstrates that his duties in this position 
constitute judging the work of others in the field. In his January 3, 2012 letter, Dr. 
, Assistant Dean and Professor at 
indicates that, as Chief Resident, the petitioner assured a level of excellence in judging the work of 
medical students. Dr. does not provide the duties in which he asserts the petitioner judged 
the medical students' work. Incidental evaluation responsibilities inherent to a training position do 
not establish that the petitioner served in an official capacity, either individually or on a panel, as "a 
judge" of the work of others. 
Regarding the petitioner serving as a professor, where part of one's job duties includes evaluating 
students does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. As stated above, 
the phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually 
as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to 
include every informal instance of evaluating students as their professor. Additionally, students in 
medical school are not in the petitioner's "field of specification for which classification is sought" as 
required by the regulation. As such, the petitioner has not established that his experience as faculty at 
various medical schools serves to meet this criterion. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence. to include his scholarly articles in and the 
to establish that he meets this critenon. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. The petitioner has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually performed the 
duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact 
on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should 
establish whether the role was critical for the organization or establislunent as a whole. The petitioner 
must demonstrate that the organizations . or establislunents (in the plural) have a distinguished 
reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished 
reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defmes distinguished as, "marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence.'"' Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as 
aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). 
Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments claimed 
under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Regarding the the petitioner submits documentation 
relating to his appointment as voluntary faculty with the rank of Clinical Assistant Professor. Although 
this documentation demonstrates his appointment to a particular position, it does not document the 
duties that the petitioner actually performed for the Internal Medicine Department, nor does it reflect the 
impact that the petitioner had on the department. It is not apparent from the record how the petitioner, 
serving as a Clinical Assistant Professor, satisfies this criterion's requirements and we will not presume 
that this position meets the regulatory requirements from the title alone. The record also lacks evidence 
that would demonstrate this entity's distinguished reputation. 
The evidence relating to the petitioner's faculty appointment with 
consists of a September 18, 2012 appointment letter signed b. 
reflecting the petitioner served as the Chief Resident of Internal Medicine Residency Program from July 
1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, and expert letters. Although the position of Chief Resident of Internal 
Medicine Residency Program appears to be a leading role within this program, the petitioner did not 
provide evidence from the university or from any person who served in authority over him within this 
program that might provide details about the duties the petitioner actually performed. Within his 
January 3, 2012 letter, Dr. indicates that the petitioner served in a leading role as the Chief 
Resident of Internal Medicine Residency Program. As the residency program is the entity in which the 
petitioner claims to have served in a leading role, this is the organization or establishment that he must 
also establish enjoys a distinguished reputation. However, the petitioner did not provide evidence to 
demonstrate that the Internal Medicine Residency Program enjoys a distinguished reputation, 
4 
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on August 12, 2014, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
independent of the larger institution. In the absence of evidence, we will not presume that a residency 
program's reputation is imputed from that of the university. 
The netitioner also submits two letters of support with the initial petition filing. The first letter from 
_ Professor of Medicine at the . _ dated July 24, 2012 
asserts the petitioner performed in a critical role for the hospital because: "Being an Interventional 
Cardiology Fellow is a critical position in a teaching hospital and is vital to providing quality 
cardiovascular care to patients. In addition to clinical and research responsibilities, [an] Interventional 
Cardiology Fellows [sic] serves as a critical role in providing instruction to cardiology fellows and 
residents, closely supervising their work in both the clinical environment as well as during procedures, 
and also reviewing and evaluating their performance." The petitioner has not 
established how his role 
in this capacity has been critical to the For instance, while Dr asserts generally that 
the petitioner's contributions to the . are critical; he does not explain the manner in which 
the petitioner's performance has been critical to the hospital as a whole, beyond the necessity of 
employing a competent fellow in that role. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 
1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17. 
Regarding the petitioner's performance for the he submits 
expert letters describing his performance for Within his first letter dated October 11, 2011, 
Program Director for the discusses the 
numerous conferences for which the petitioner has been invited to present his research. However, Dr. 
did not assert within this letter that the petitioner has performed in a leading or in a critical role 
for any organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation. The second letter from 
Chapter Governor, discusses the petitioner's role as councilor of a 
portion of an Illinois district. Dr. indicates within the letter that there is only one 
councilor for the in this area, and that it is the petitioner's responsibility as the councilor to 
"represent the needs of the regional cardiologists and their patients to the state and national as 
policy decisions are being made." Although Dr. indicates that it is the petitioner's 
responsibility to participate in policy decisions, he does not state, nor has he described the petitioner's 
duties or his performance in such a 
manner that the petitioner can be said to have performed in a leading 
role for the organization. It is expected that the petitioner will perform the routine duties of a council 
member within the district and that he will have some impact on policy decisions; however, merely 
serving as a council member does not equate to the petitioner performing in a leading role. Moreover, 
the petitioner has not demonstrated the distinguished reputation of the relevant district. 
The petitioner's appellate brief also identifies Dr ; letter as evidence of the petitioner's critical 
role as the "Primarv Investigator at the site for the national clinical 
research trial ' Within the record, the petitioner notes that this project is associated 
with Dr. mention of the petitioner and this project reflects that the petitioner 
has been active in this research, that he performs the work "on his own free time and [he] is 
unreimbursed for it." The petitioner provides a second letter from Dr. in response to the RFE 
dated June 19, 2013. Within this second letter, Dr. references how important the petitioner's 
work on "will be" in the future, but he does not describe how the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
performance has been leading or critical to tbP. nrn1P.c.L 
appellate brief identifies as being pertinent to 
research projects, and a July 24, 2012 email from 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Th~ remaining evidence that the petitioner's 
1" list of the petitioner's clinical 
principal investigators inviting 
The petitioner did not provide evidence 
indicating that he is a 
the petitioner to a investigator meeting. 
from any personnel in an authoritative position within 
Primary Investigator, or is employed in a similar capacity. 
Based on the above analysis, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct 
occupation 
with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top 
level of the field.5 The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he has 
earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing 
similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc . Comm'r 
1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive 
player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The petitioner provided a hysician compensation report and the petitioner's 2012 
Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement. After receiving the RFE response, the director determined that the 
petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The record does not support the director's favorable 
eligibility determination related to this criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
The petitioner only submitted the first line of the report. The petitioner did not 
submit evidence demonstrating whether this report reflects the average, mean, or top salaries of 
cardiologists. The petitioner must submit evidence of earnings in comparison with those performing 
work similar to the work he claims. As the petitioner claims that he is at the top of his field of 
endeavor, he must also provide earnings data for cardiologists at the top of the field. A similar position 
5 While we acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Racine v. INS, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that 
the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at 
all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation 
is consistent with ... the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
was expressed in accordance with Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 955; see also Crimson, 934 F. Supp. 
at 968 (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni, 891 F. Supp. at 444-45 
(N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen rather 
than the mean salary of other hockey players in general). The Associate Commissioner in Matter of 
Price compared the alien's monetary earnings with his rankings among those in the top of his field, in 
the Professional Golfers' Association, performing similar work. Therefore, the petitioner must also 
provide earnings of those performing similar work (at the top of the field of endeavor) in accordance 
with Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 955. 
As the petitioner has not provided earnings data for those in the top of his field in which to compare his 
earnings, he cannot demonstrate that he has met the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence is 
not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field or 
sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits 
determination. 7 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
7 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to. establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.