dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 0 5 20\3 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administ rative 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-prec edent 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:/Jwww.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, 
':z?rJS: __ 
~'rr-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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 the petition filing date is December 17, 2012. On January 
9, 2013, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on March 6, 2013. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief with additional documentary evidence discussed in Part II. A. of this decision. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 
C.F.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.F.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 AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.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 AAO's 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 the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.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, the AAO 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 failed to satisfy 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.F.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. Standard of Proof 
On appeal, counsel asserts that instead of applying the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, 
the director applied a higher standard. Counsel cites to the most recent precedent decision related to the 
preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). 
The Chawathe decision stated: 
[T]he "preponderance of the evidence" standard does not relieve the petitioner or 
applicant from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation. There are 
no regulations relating to a corporation's eligibility as an "American firm or 
corporation" under section 316(b) of the Act. Had the regulations required specific 
evidence, the applicant would have been required to submit that evidence. Cf 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) (2006) (requiring that specific objective evidence be submitted to 
demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability). 
25 I&N Dec. at 375 n.7. The final determination of whether the evidence meets the plain language 
requirements of a regulation lies with USCIS. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Cornm'r 1988) (finding that the appropriate entity to determine eligibility is USCIS in a scenario 
whereby an advisory opinion or statement is not consistent with other information that is part of the 
record). Ultimately, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 
1989)). 
As the director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted relevant and probative evidence 
satisfying the regulatory requirements, the director did not violate the appropriate standard of proof. 
The standard of proof issue is separate and distinct from counsel's assertion that the director went 
beyond the regulatory requirements, which the AAO will address below. Ultimately, the petitioner did 
not submit probative evidence sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility under the plain language 
requirements of the criteria. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable evidence if the 
petitioner is able to demonstrate that he or she is unable to qualify for this classification because the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. It 
is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to his 
occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Where an individual is simply unable to meet or submit sufficient 
documentary evidence of at least three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. As the petitioner has not 
attempted to demonstrate that the regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply 
to his occupation, the petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence to- qualify for this immigrant 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
classification. As such,the petitioner has not established that comparable evidence is relevant to this 
matter. 
Moreover, while counsel does not explain what evidence the petitioner submitted as comparable 
evidence on appeal, initially the petitioner identified the following documentation as comparable 
evidence: (1) the petitioner's curriculum vitae, (2) awards received by the petitioner, (3) the petitioner's 
memberships, (4) the petitioner's degrees and (5) the petitioner's statement of intent to work in the 
United States. The petitioner's personal curriculum vitae is a list of his claimed experience, education 
and accomplishments, not evidence of a specific achievement comparable to those listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 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)). 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii) expressly address lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes and memberships in associations that require outstanding 
achievements of their members as judged by nationally recognized experts. The petitioner does not 
claim that his awards and memberships meet these requirements. Awards and memberships that do not 
meet the plain language requirements at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii) are not comparable to those 
that do. Thus, they do not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Degrees are evidence relating to 
exceptional ability, a lesser classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). Notably, a degree is not, by itself, sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. 
Section 203(b )(2)(C) of the Act. Thus, degrees are not comparable to the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Finally, evidence of the petitioner's intent to continue working in his area of expertise 
upon entry into the United States is required initial evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), and is 
not also comparable evidence of past accomplishments pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that is comparable to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
C. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets this criterion based on the letter from 
Editor in Chief of the 
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 
Page6 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential , future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter , 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
On appeal, counsel identifies letters from three experts in the field addressing the petitioner ' s eligibility 
under this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. Specifically , the director determined that while the expert letters are helpful, the petitioner 
must demonstrate the major significance of his work through preexisting, independent, and objective 
evidence. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that letters alone are sufficient to demonstrate eligibility under this criterion 
and that the provided letters qualify the petitioner. The petitioner also submits evidence that three of his 
articles have garnered a minimal number of citations. 
Counsel first discusses the two letters from~~~-----~ ___ . -~ -~ , Director of Urogynecology at 
Within Dr. first letter, dated August 9, 2012, she discussed the petitioner's skills, 
the surgeries he performed, his research abilities, and a publication relating to the petitioner's work that 
"has great significance because it helps to teach these important measures to the next generations of 
surgeons." However , Dr. did not provide the name of the publication or of the title of the 
petitioner's work within the publication. Dr. February 6, 2013 letter, discussed the 
petitioner 's original published research relating to "a huge dilemma in the field." Dr. stated 
that the leaders in the field are struggling to get more widespread usage of a system identified within the 
petitioner's published research, and that: "The original research done by ·[the petitioner] outlines the 
obstacles in gaining such disseminated usage. This is a major step forward toward solving this 
problem." While the petitioner's research may be original, Dr. letter does not establish that 
his research has made a significant impact in his field. She notes its usefulness in contributing to the 
possibility of resolving a dilemma within the petitioner's field, but she has not described how it has 
already resulted in a measurable impact in the field. 
Dr. stated within her February 6, 2013 letter that the petitioner 's report on recurrent urinary 
tract infections "is of major significance because it describes new avenues for therapy for a very 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
common problem. This may affect the lives of many patients." In this statement, Dr. 
recognizes the potential for the petitioner' s work to impact the field in the future; however, the 
regulation requires that the impact has already materialized. A petitioner must establish the elements 
for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not 
be approved if the beneficiary 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). This evidence 
does not establish that, as of the priority date, the petitioner had contributed to his field in a significant 
manner as required by the regulation. 
Counsel next addresses the letter from Dr. the Chairman of the OBGYN Department at 
Within Dr. November 14, 2012letter he asserts the petitioner "has made 
significant contributions to women's healthcare as a clinician, researcher and teacher" and that he "is 
one of a very small percentage who has risen to the top of this demanding field" through his research, 
awards, and his work with women in his practice. However, Dr. does not identify any 
contributions that the petitioner has made in his field that might satisfy this criterion's requirements or 
explain their impact in the field as a whole. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner' s burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner , 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. 
v. TheAttorney General ofth e United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Within Dr. January 13, 2013 letter, he states that he knows from his discussions with 
physicians across the country, that these physicians "consider the minimally invasive surgical 
procedures that [the petitioner] describes as an important development." Dr. does not, 
however, identify these physicians or assert that they have adopted the petitioner's procedures at their 
hospitals or clinics. Dr. also describes how the petitioner's work is original and asserts the 
petitioner's alternative to the use of mesh in female pelvic surgery is of major significance in the field in 
that it provides an alternative to the synthetic mesh about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) expressed concern in 2011. However, Dr. does not describe the impact the petitioner's 
findings have already had in the field. For example, he does not suggest that the field is adopting the 
petitioner's alternative. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. 
Supp. at 15. 
The record also contains a letter from dated February 12, 2013. Both counsel and Dr. 
assert that Dr. serves as the Chief Resident of Obstetrics and Gynecology for the 
Nonetheless, Dr. letter does not bear the letterhead. 
Within the letter, Dr. described how the petitioner, his tutor, has influenced and made an impact on 
his own medical procedures. The record contains similar letters from two additional residents at Texas 
hospitals, Dr. , a third year Obstetrics and Gynecology resident, and Dr. _ __ 
a chief resident. That the petitioner has mentored resident physicians, a postdoctoral 
training position according to the curriculum vitae of other references in the record, is not sufficient to 
meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. The petitioner must have made multiple 
contributions that are of major significance in his field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
MD, discussed the following: the petitioner 's research; his presentations relating to case 
reports; his published material; and his work as a surgeon meeting the needs of an underserved field. 
Dr. stated that the petitioner's contribution of major significance to medicine is his research on 
the location of mesh implantation sites in female surgeries that lead to complications. Dr. stated 
that the petitioner's efforts "will have a profound impact, both on a national and on an international 
level, in helping scientists and physicians understand the unique properties of these mesh implants and 
how they can best improve the patient's quality of life when utilized correctly and safely." Again, this 
opinion relates to a possible future contribution while the regulation requires that the benefit to the field 
have already come to fruition. 
The reference letters the petitioner submitted do not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's 
work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of 
major significance. The Board of hnmigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 
(BIA 2000) (citing Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 
(BIA 1998); Matter of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 
211, 218 (BIA 1985)). The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 
22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater 
need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Letters that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USC/S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 
2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the 
AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the 
field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language. " 596 F.3d at 1122. The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. While such 
letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion , use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact" but rather 
is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 
issue). US CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
Finally, with respect to the petitioner's publications, the 
regulations contain a separate criterion 
regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate 
evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. Publications and presentations are not sufficient 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
The record contains evidence that three of the petitioner's articles have each garnered minimal citation. 
The petitioner has not explained how this level of citation demonstrates that the petitioner's articles 
represent contributions of major significance in the field. 
Based on the foregoing, 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 establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. The petitioner also 
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 establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the 
organizations or establishments (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 defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."3 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. 
On appeal, counsel does not address the petitioner's previous claims relating to his performance in the 
Israeli military or offer additional arguments relating to these claims. Therefore, the petitioner has 
abandoned these claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the 
court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
3 See .!:illQJLwww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on October 22, 2013, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
AAO). The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or 
critical role for and that he did not establish that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The evidence on record is sufficient to demonstrate that has a distinguished 
reputation. _ was included in the three percent of the nation's hospitals that have at 
least one department ranked in one of 16 specialties in In addition, the 
hospital had another 11 departments classified as "High-Performing" by this same publication. The 
petitioner also provided the criteria that utilized to rank each of the 
hospital's department. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate this organization's distinguished 
reputation. 
Regarding the petitioner's performance for he indicates on his curriculum vitae 
that his position there was as a resident. The record does not contain an organizational chart reflecting 
that a resident is a leading role for a hospital. Notably, Dr. and Dr. list their residencies 
under "education" on their curriculum vitae. Dr. lists her residency and fellowship under 
"postdoctoral training" on her curriculum vitae. The petitioner provided a letter from 
Chairman and Residency Program Director of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at 
Dr. claimed the petitioner performed in a critical role as a resident at 
but did not describe how the petitioner's performance was critical to the hospital as a whole 
beyond the obvious requirement that the hospital employ competent residents. Dr. discussed the 
petitioner's duties as a surgeon for complex surgeries, his graduation from the residency program with 
honors, his awards from the hospital, his published works, and his presentations at national and 
international conferences. However, Dr. did not address where the petitioner fit within the 
hierarchy of the hospital or the manner in which the petitioner's performance impacted 
as a whole. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the alien has 
performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, which is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in 
the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular 
within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of 
experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the regulation uses the singular or plural. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, 
Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 
2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(1)(2) requires 
a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner had 
established that he performed in a leading or critical role for he would still not 
meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
D. 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.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes 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, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 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. 
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. 
4 
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)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) 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(f)(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).