dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PlmLlCCOPY 
DATE: MAY 0 5 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
-~~~~ 
~erryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a one-page statement. For the reasons dis"ussed below, the AAO will 
uphold the director's determination that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Ultimately, the evidence falls far short of the hyperbolic claims made by counsel and in the 
letters of support. For example, several references attest to the petitioner's alleged presentations at elite 
conferences before international audiences but the record does not contain programs from these 
conferences, published proceedings, or even copies the presentations themselves. The petitioner does 
not list such presentations on her curriculum vitae. Thus, the credibility of these references is seriously 
diminished. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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, 
-Page 3 
(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 IOlst 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 following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) 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 specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
Page 4 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
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.' 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». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir 1 field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
I 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). 
Page 5 
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 reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ,381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), afI'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
At the outset, it bears mention that the petitioner must establish her eligibility as of the date of filing, 
August 10,2009. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'1. 
Comm'r. 1971). Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner is "one of the leading nephrologists in the 
nation." The petitioner, however, worked as a resident in internal medicine prior to 2007 when she 
began her nephrology training fellowship at the University of Pittsburgh. While counsel stresses that 
the petitioner is board certified in internal medicine, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner is 
board ~ One of the petitioner's references, an assistant professor 
at the~ lists board certification from the American Board of Nephrology on her 
curriculum vitae. Thus, such certification exists. Notably,_lists her nephrology fellowship 
under "postdoctoral training" on her curriculum. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's initial submission included an exhibit entitled "Honors, Awards and Distinctions." 
Within that exhibit, the petitioner submitted the following: 
I. A January 20, 2009 Department of Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System "Star" 
certificate for "Special Thanks and Recognition." Attached to the certificate is a form a patient 
completed recommending the petitioner for a "Star." On this form, the patient expresses 
appreciation to the petitioner for her "smile," passing on "good news about my labs" and "being 
part of this very special event (transplantation)." 
2. A 2004-2005 "Resident Achievement Award" from 
3. A March 2, 2006 Certificate from the Southern Society for Clinical Investigation (SSeI) 
recognizing the petitioner "for Selection and Participation in the Fifth Annual SSCI Nephrology 
Young Investigators' Forum." 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
awarding the petitioner second place in the _ 
for basic science research. 
5. A June 10, 2009 email from the Great Rivers Affiliate of the American Heart Association 
(AHA) approving the petitioner's application for funding under the Physician-Scientist 
Postdoctoral Fellowship program. 
6. 2009 letter purportedly 
advising that NKF had approved the petitioner's research proposal 
for funding under the NKF Postdoctoral Research Fellowships program. 
7. of the Nephrology Fellowship Program at the 
congratulating the petitioner and another doctor 
for their selection as "the ChicfKidney Doctors for the Fellowship program for academic 2008-
09." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence about the significance of the above 
evidence, counsel asserts that the petitioner's travel grants constitute quaIilYing evidence under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The record, however, contains no travel grants or documentation about these 
grants, such as whether they are limited to newly graduated physicians to provide financial assistance 
for attending conferences. 
The director concluded that the above evidence does not meet the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Counsel does not specifically challenge that conclusion on 
appeal. 
Employee recogmtJon based on a letter of appreciation from a patient is not a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. Similarly, employee recognition limited to 
residents at that institution is not a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. 
While SSCI may be a prestigious association, the petitioner has not provided evidence that its young 
investigator awards are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or award for excellence. For 
example, the petitioner did not submit evidence that the general or trade media report on the selection 
of the awardees or similar evidence of the field's recognition of these awards. 
As noted by the director, research grants are designed to fund future research rather than recognize past 
excellence. Thus, research grants are not qualifYing evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Finally, ajob appointment, including a promotion, is not a prize or award. 
--Page 7 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 field~. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) mandates that the memberships be in 
associations that require outstanding achievements of their members. USCIS may not unilaterally 
impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th 
Cir.2008). Nothing in these decisions, however, suggests that USCIS may ignore requirements that 
are expressly in the regulations. Thus, demonstrating that the petitioner is a member of an 
association is only half of the petitioner's burden. According to the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the petitioner must also demonstrate that the association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. 
Within the exhibit entitled "Membership in Prestigious Societies," the petitioner submitted her 
Pennsylvania medical license and her board certification from the American Board of Internal 
Medicine. The petitioner also submitted her 2002 membership in the honor medical society Alpha 
Omega Alpha. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the following 
professional associations: Women in Nephrology (WIN), the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) 
and the American Society of Nephrology (ASN). The petitioner also submitted materials about these 
associations and the Renal Physicians Association (RP A) and NKF without evidence that the petitioner 
is a member of either RP A or NKF. 
The submitted materials about the American Board of Intemal Medicine states that it certifies internists 
that "have demonstrated - to their peers and to the public - that they have the clinical judgment, sills 
and attitudes essential for the delivery of excellence patient care." Significantly, the board "certifies 
one out of every three practicing physicians in the United States," having issued "over 185,000 valid 
certificates in internal medicine and its subspecialties." The petitioner provided materials about the 
mission and activities of WIN but not the association's membership requirements. The evidence of 
membership in ISN suggests that the petitioner renew her membership as a "Member in Training." The 
remaining materials about ISN do not address its membership requirements. Similarly, the materials 
about ASN discuss its mission but not its membership requirements. 
Even if the petitioner had documented her membership in RP A, the materials submitted reveal that 
RP A is open to "Nephrologists who are licensed to practice medicine in the U.S., engaged in the 
treatment of patients with kidney disease, involved in research activities involving kidney disease or 
involved in educational activities related to kidney disease." The materials further state: "Renal fellows 
in training are eligible for associate membership which is free during their training." Even if the 
-Page 8 
petitioner had documented her membership in NKF, the materials submitted do not address the 
membership requirements for that association. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted materials about 
SSCI and Alpha Omega Alpha. While the petitioner has presented her work at an SSCI young 
investigators' forum and received recognition for the presentation, the petitioner did not document her 
membership in SSCI. 
The materials regarding Alpha Omega Alpha state that membership in the society "confers recognition 
for a physician's dedication to the profession and art of healing." The materials further state that the 
membership includes students, who could not yet have outstanding achievements in the field of 
medicine. Academic achievements such as a student's grade point average are not outstanding 
achievements in the discipline or field of nephrology or even medicine as a whole. Moreover, the 
materials do not provide the exact membership requirements, stating instead that those requirements 
appear in the society's constitution, which the petitioner did not submit. 
In her response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel states: 
Please not that in general for the American physicians, it is very rare for outstanding 
achievement actually to be required. For this reason, we respectfully request that 
[USCIS 1 look to her published and presented work as well as her unique contributions 
to the field as a clinical physician and researcher. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
[The petitioner 1 is a member of most of the most prominent medical societies in the 
country. Generally, these societies do not require outstanding achievements on the part 
of their members, but this is the nonn with regard to American medical societies we 
respectfully assert. 
Counsel appears to concede that the petitioner is not, in fact, a member of an association that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. Counsel's suggestion that such associations do not exist in 
the United States both lacks support in the record and is irrelevant. First, counsel's assertion does not 
address the existence of associations such as the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 
Even assuming such associations are rare, counsel has not explained the relevance of a limited number 
of qualifying medical associations. As stated above, the definition of extraordinary ability means a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is "one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Thus, the fact that the petitioner only 
belongs to those associations of which it is "the nonn" to belong does not advance the petitioner's 
ultimate claim to eligibility. 
Page 9 
Even if the AAO accepted that this standard was not readily applicable to the petitioner's field, and the 
AAO makes no such finding, the petitioner's professional memberships do not constitute comparable 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Specifically, membership in associations that do not require 
outstanding achievements of their members is not remotely "comparable" to membership in 
associations that do. 
As stressed above, regardless of whether there are medical associations that require outstanding 
achievements of their members, the AAO is bound by the plain language requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As the petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the associations of which she is a 
member requires outstanding achievements for members at the petitioner's level of membership, she 
has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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. 
Counsel did not previously assert that the petitioner was submitting qualifying evidence under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The director concluded that the petitioner did not submit such evidence. On appeal, 
counsel states for the first time that the petitioner submitted "material about the alien." Counsel does 
not elaborate as to what evidence in the record constitutes "material about the alien." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material 
be "about" the petitioner relating to her work. The record contains published articles that cite the 
petitioner's work in a footnote. Some of these articles contain hundreds of footnotes. It cannot be 
credibly asserted that any of these published articles are "about" the petitioner relating to her work. 
Rather they are about the authors' own work or recent developments in the field in general. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 alliedfield of specification for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter thanking the petitioner for agreeing to teach a four-session Advanced 
Physical Examination Course at the University of Pittsburgh. The petitioner also submitted a blank 
student evaluation form for this course. In addition, the petitioner submitted a University of Pittsburgh 
memorandum advising the petitioner that it was time to review the fellow applications and complete 
the Rank Sheet. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the petitioner had 
judged the work of others "as an educator and researcher." Counsel further asserted that the petitioner 
Page 10 
has judged the work of "senior physicians who do not have her expertise." Finally, counsel asserted 
that the petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for the American Journal of Physiology - Renal 
Physiology. T~ letter from an assistant professor of 
medicine at the __ , explaining that she has "requested that [the petitioner] assist 
me in my role of manuscript referee for the American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology." • 
•• IIi. specifically explicitly states that she, not the petitioner, is the person that the journal asked 
to referee the manuscripts. The record contains no requests directly from journals addressed to the 
petitioner. 
The director concluded that any 'judging" duties were incidental and inherent to teaching. On appeal, 
counsel states generally that the petitioner "has judged the work of even senior peers on several levels." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the beneficiary has served as "a 
judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The AAO does 
not add any novel evidentiary requirements by concluding incidental review of student work inherent 
to all teachers and an informal request from a colleague for input on her own manuscript review fail 
to meet the plain language requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Nevertheless, the AAO will still consider 
this evidence in the final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be 
expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and 
applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The record contains four articles, two of which are review articles. Review articles do not "'I"vn 
authors' original contributions to the field. 
_ at the asserts was "h~n<1-
selected to have her work presented before leading international medical conferences attended by 
experts from throughout the world." does not identifY these conferences and the record 
establishes only that the petitioner presented original research at the SSCI Nephrology Young 
Investigators' Forum and made other presentations at local seminars. Thus, the only widely 
disseminated original research in the record consists of the petitioner's two articles reporting original 
Page II 
research and her presentation at the SSCI forum, although that event appears to be a regional rather than 
a national or international conference. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the 
regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles.3 Thus, 
there is no presumption that every published article or presentation is a contribution of major 
significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of her article and presentation. 
petitioner submitted evidence that her article on the modulation of COX-2 by statins in 
ganaen:d five 
citations. She also submitted evidence that her review article in had 
garnered 11 citations. As stated above, however, the review article does not report on the petitioner's 
own original research. A single original article that has garnered five citations is not indicative of 
original contributions in the field. 
As discussed above, while the petitioner did not submit a copy of this presentation and does not list this 
presentation among her presentations on her curriculum vitae, the petitioner received a second place 
plaque "in recognition of your outstanding contributions to basic science research" from SSC!. The 
plaque is in recognition of a presentation at the society's Nephrology Young Investigators' Forum. 
Such recognition at the time of presentation may demonstrate the promising nature of the research, but 
cannot demonstrate the study's ultimate influence on the field once disseminated. The record contains 
no evidence that other researchers have cited this study or comparable evidence of the study's influence 
in the field. 
The remaining evidence relevant to this criterion consists of letters. a former medical 
student and resident at the American University of Beirut and a former nephrology resident at Emory 
University, provides an anecdote where the petitioner correctly diagnosed and successfully treated a 
dialysis patient having a heart attack "while other physicians were unable to treat this patient's 
condition." The anecdote does not explain what other physicians saw this patient or why they were 
unable to diagnose his heart attack. Ultimately, an anecdote where the petitioner successfully 
diagnosed and treated a patient cannot demonstrate her original contributions of major significance in 
the field . 
....... Director of the Renal Division at discusses 
the petitioner's work as an intern at that institution. asserts that the petitioner has "rare 
expertise in handling sophisticated, state-of-the-art procedures" and that these skills allows the 
) Publication 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. USC/So 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffinned its holding that the AAO did not abuse 
its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
Page 12 
petitioner to diagnose renal problems correctly at their earliest stages. _ does not assert tbat the 
petitioner developed any of these "sophisticated state-of-the-art procedures" or explain how knowledge 
of procedures developed by others and apparently taught to the petitioner by someone is an "original" 
contribution in the field of nephrology. 
_ also praises the petitioner ability to combine clinical pvrOPrti 
that the petitioner published an original study in 
study "has already shown much influence in her nephrology field." provides no examples of 
this alleged influence. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 4 _ asserts 
that the petitioner's "groundbreaking work has also been presented at numerous elite forums before 
international audiences of fellow experts." As stated above, however, the record contains evidence 
only that the petitioner presented her research at the regional SSCI Young Investigators' Forum and 
several local seminars at the institutions where she worked. _ assertion, therefore, is not 
supported by the record and, thus, his overall credibility is diminished. 
discusses the petitioner's work at the University of Pittsburgh. Llike 
makes unsupported assertions regarding the nature of the petitioner's past presentations, 
referencing "leading international medical conferences" whereas the petitioner appears only to have 
made a presentation at a regional conference within the United States and internal grand round and 
journal club meetings. Similarly, asserts that the petitioner "has also played a leading role 
in numerous important and prominent nephrology research studies that have been so progressive as to 
have been awarded with publication in elite medical journals." instead, the petitioner has authored only 
four two of which are review articles rather than discussions of the petitioner's original 
research. does not explain how two, or even four, research articles rise to the level of 
also asserts that the petitioner's research has further advanced the 
••••• does not provide examples of "tools" developed by the 
petitIOner. assertions are so hyperbolic and disassociated from the actual evidence of 
record that they serve only to diminish his credibility in this proceeding. 
currently an associate professor at the 
the associate director of Nephrology Fellowship at 
asserts that the petitioner has played a critical role for both 
Emory University and the University of Pittsburgh. Additional discussion of this assertion appears 
below under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). _ also affirms that there is a shortage of 
nephrologists, especially those with expertise in renal replacement procedures, peritoneal dialysis and 
renal transplantation. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United 
States, however, is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. New York Dep 'f of 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r. 1998). 
4 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ()fthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
Page 13 
and 
a professor at asserts that the petitioner "has presented her work at leading 
international medical conferences, and has also been awarded prestigious research grants to perform her 
expert research." As stated above, the petitioner has not, in fact, presented her work at medical 
conferences. asserts that RP A is one of the most "competitive medical organizations 
in the world." As stated above, however, the materials regarding membership in RP A reveals that any 
licensed physician practicing in nephrology is eligible. Even counsel concedes on appeal that the 
petitioner's memberships are not exclusive. Thus, once again, is diminished . 
• ___ • states that the petitioner "has also developed a reputation for her pioneering research 
projects which have merited world-wide publication, and has been relied upon as an expert in her field 
in numerous ways." This highly conclusory statement without a single example of this reliance carries 
no evidentiary weight. 
The petitioner also submitted letters from those with whom she has not worked. Chief 
of the Division of Pediatric Nephrology at asserts that her letter is 
based on a "review of [the petitioner's] credentials and her stellar reputation in the field." According to 
her curriculum vitae, has coauthored at least four articles with j. _ 
states: 
Specifically, [the petitioner] has expertise in treating Chronic Renal Disease, End Stage 
Renal Disease, Hypertension, Electrolyte Disorder and Acute Renal Failure. [The 
petitioner] specializes in dialysis catheter placements (both electively and under 
emergent situations) and kidney biopsy for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, both in 
native and transplanted kidneys. She manages hypertension, diabetes, electrolyte 
abnormalities, polycythemia and other complications of renal disease. Less than 5% of 
nephrologists in the United States are capable of performing such technically 
demanding care. 
The petitioner submitted Medicare's End-Stage Renal Disease Program: Current Status and Future 
Prospects as evidence of the importance of the petitioner's field. This article lists both diabetes and 
hypertension as end stage renal characteristics. Thus, both hypertension and diabetes fall squarely 
within a nephrologist's area of practice. The article does not suggest that 95 percent of nephrologists 
cannot manage hypertension or diabetes, a statistic that if remotely true would seem to warrant 
widespread media coverage. In fact, on page 170 of the article, the authors indicate that the quality of 
care for end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is improving and that the "nephrology community has 
also developed several clinical practice guidelines to assist clinicians who care for ESRD patients." 
Without statistical support, assertion is not persuasive. 
respOllseto the director's request for additional evidence, Chair in Nephrology at 
asserts that he has reviewed the petitioner's resume. does not 
suggest that he had ever heard of the petitioner prior to being contacted for a reference letter. _ 
Page 14 
has previously coauthored an article with_. _ provides conclusory assertions without 
providing a specific contribution and explaining how it has impacted the field of nephrology. 
Director of the KidneylPancreas Transplant Service at the 
New Jersey, discusses the petitioner's 2009 article and asserts that "it has a very 
important impact on my own practice and that of my colleagues." This article, however, is a review 
article and does not report on the petitioner's original research. This letter does not demonstrate the 
petitioner's reputation outside of New Jersey. As noted above, the petitioner's former colleague,. 
_ current works at 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held 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 
cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BrA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 5 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not withuut weight and have been considered above. uscrs may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 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, as the AAO has done above, 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"). USCIS 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 ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 6 The 
5 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. 
6 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. CiT. 1990); 
Avyr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
-Page 15 
petitioner also failed to submit sutlicient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation 
of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. In fact, the record 
contradicts some of the assertions in these letters. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media 
The petitioner submitted four published articles. This evidence meets the plain language requirements 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel requested that the director consider 
the petitioner's conference presentations under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). As stated above, the record 
documents the petitioner's presentation at the SSCI Nephrology Young Investigators' Forum and local 
presentations at the institutions where she worked. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) expressly requires that the petitioner's work be displayed 
at "artistic" exhibitions or showcases. Even accepting that this criterion is not readily applicable to the 
petitioner's occupation, there is no need to consider them as comparable evidence under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 4), a provision that allows USCIS to consider evidence that otherwise does not fall under the 
relevant standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Scholarly presentations that are published in the 
proceedings of conferences already meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). As stated above, the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence under that 
criterion. Moreover, presentations are at least relevant to the contributions criterion set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Thus, this decision has already considered the petitioner's presentations and it 
would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement of extensive evidence to conclude that such 
presentations are also qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Moreover, the purpose of 
scientific conferences is to disseminate the latest novel research to other scholars in the field; they 
are not generally comparable to artistic exhibitions or showcases, designed for the general public 
appreciation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that either meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) or that warrants consideration as 
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Allorney General o/the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
-Page 16 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel has consistently asserted that the petitioner has played a leading or critical role for every 
hospital where she has worked as an educator, researcher and physician. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). 
_ asserts that the petitioner "played a leading role in numerous important and prominent 
research studies." At issue, however, is whether the petitioner played a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment as a whole. Regardless, merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisty the petitioner's burden of prooC Moreover, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions.8 
the former Associate Director of the Renal Fellowship Program at the 
asserts that the petitioner "played critical roles in some of the best centers of 
excellence in nephrology in North America and abroad, namely the University of Pittsburgh Medical 
Center and Emory University'S School of Medicine." Neither of the named institutions is outside the 
United States as claimed by iii •••• 
The recognition certificate from Emory University reveals that the petitioner was an intern at that 
institution. confirms that the petitioner was a fellow in nephrology at that university. As 
discussed above, other references include their fellowships under training. Tthe record contains an 
email congratulating the petitioner and another doctor for their selection as "the Chief Kidney Doctors 
for the Fellowship program for academic 2008-09." The record contains no evidence explaining how 
this role fits within the overall hierarchy of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Moreover, 
the position appears to still be within the fellowship training program. The implication that every 
medical resident or fellow plays a leading role for the hospital where she works is not persuasive. 
At issue, then, is whether the petitioner performed a critical role for either hospital. Hospitals require 
competent interns and fellows. A conclusion that the petitioner played a critical role for either hospital 
simply by competently working in a position that needed to be filled would render this criterion 
meaningless. Specifically, it can be presumed that employers do not typically hire individuals to fill 
roles that serve no purpose for the employer; yet not every employee for a distinguished organization 
meets this criterion. In determining whether the petitioner's role was critical the AAO looks at her 
performance in that role and how it contributed to the hospital's activities beyond what is normally 
expected of interns and fellows in training. 
7 Fedin Bros. Co., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
81756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Page 17 
As stated above, _ thanked the petitioner for agreeing to teach a four-session course at the 
University of Pittsburgh. The petitioner also submitted evidence that the petitioner was one of several 
lecturers for "Kidney Course 2008," which appears to be an internal course at the University of 
Pittsburgh. The petitioner also participated in Grand Rounds and a journal club, both of which appear 
to be internal. 
The record lacks evidence the petitioner contributed significantly to the activities of any university 
beyond the normal expectations of the numerous interns and fellows who rotate through these 
universities annually. 
In light of the above, the petitioner, who has only worked in trainee positions, has not submitted 
qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualifY as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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)(3). See Kazarian, 596 FJd at 1119-20. 
This decision has already addressed why the petitioner's "awards" do not rise to the level of 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence. The evidence discussed above is also 
not indicative of or consistent with sustained acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that the 
petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of her endeavor." Employer 
recognition and awards and research grants limited to young investigators or trainees does not 
compare the petitioner with the most experienced and renowned members of the field. 
Similarly, the medical honor society recognizes high educational achievement or gifted teaching. 
The petitioner became a member in 2002, the same year she obtained her medical degree. Thus, the 
membership appears to recognize her educational achievements. The membership does not suggest 
that she compares with the most experienced and renowned members of the field. The petitioner did 
not establish that any of the remaining memberships require much more than qualifications for 
-Page 18 
employment in the field and pursuit of such employment. Such memberships are not indicative of 
the petitioner's ranking at the very top of her field. 
As stated above, the record reflects that the petitioner has taught courses and refereed articles for a 
journal at the request of her own supervisor. The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a 
relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's national or 
international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. This purported experience as a 'judge" is 
entirely internal and is not consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Moreover, scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted 
articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys international 
recogmtlOn. Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as 
evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, 
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner cannot establish that her experience is indicative of 
or consistent with national or international recognition. 
This decision has already discussed at length why the petitioner has failed to establish that her ability 
to perform procedures developed by others and minimal research history constitute contributions of 
major significance to the field. The record is simply not persuasive that the petitioner's training 
experience, including participation in research, elevates her to that small percentage at the top of her 
field. 
As stated above, the petitioner has authored scholarly articles. Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122, however, the field's response to these articles may be and will be considered in our 
final merits determination. The petitioner documented that two of her articles have garnered a limited 
number of citations. This number of citations is not consistent with or indicative of national or 
international acclaim in nephrology. 
While the petitioner may have served a critical role for specific projects and taught courses in her 
capacity as a fellow, her positions have been trainee positions. Simply contributing to the passing on of 
knowledge someone else passed on to her in the context of a teaching hospital is not indicative of or 
consistent with either national or international acclaim or a position within the small percentage at the 
very top of her field. 
More generally, further asserts that the petitioner "is one of the elite members in 
tre:atirlg the most rare disorders that only a very small amount of physicians are qualified to treat." 
does not explain this assertion in light of the fact that several of the references are 
board certified nephrologists and the petitioner has not even secured this certification of competence 
in nephrology. If it is assertion that the petitioner is an elite physician simply by 
specializing in nephrology because the majority of physicians are not nephrologists, that assertion is 
not persuasive. There are many medical specialties, including "complex" specialties such as 
Page 19 
cardiology, neurology, etc. The large number of specialties suggests that no one specialty accounts 
for the majority of specialists. Not every specialist is within that small percentage at the very top of 
the field or nationally or internationally acclaimed. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a nephrology fellow, 
relies on certification in internal medicine; recognition limited io employees or young investigators; 
professional memberships; service as a teacher at a teaching hospital; standard grand round 
presentations; an anecdote of her successful treatment of a patient; a minimal publication record; and 
the praise of peers, some of whom lack credibility. Significantly, the petitioner's references list their 
own fellowship under training on their curriculum vitae. _ is Chief of the Renal-Electrolyte 
Division at the and has served on the editorial board of three . _ 
i
iiiiii.are board certified in nephrology. has also 
is also Chief Renal Section at the 
and served on the board of directors of the National Kidney Foundation. 
Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a 
nephrologist to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a nephrologist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.