dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6620180 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a medical center , seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Beneficiary had 
satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor ." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First , a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as a sports medicine physician since 2014. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Beneficiary met only one of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), discussed farther below. On appeal, 
the Petitioner demonstrates that the Beneficiary participated as a judge of the work of others and 
performed in a critical role for it, thereby fulfilling 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii). 
Because the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the 
totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether it has demonstrated, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim, 2 that 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A) of the Act). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictiona,y 's definition of"sustain" as to supp01t or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
2 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary receiv,.......~~'t"chelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery 
(MBBS) from I I Universit in India in 2001. 4 In addition, he completed a 
residency in family medicine with.__ __________ ~ _ ____, inl !Ohio in 2011. 
Further, he participated in a fellowship in geriatrics at in 2012 and a fellowship in primary 
care sports medicine at State University ofl I in.....,..._~' New York in 2013. Moreover, as 
indicated above, the Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as a sports medicine physician since 
2014. As mentioned above, the Beneficiary judged others, authored scholarly articles, and performed 
in a critical role. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his personal and professional 
achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 5 The Petitioner 
submits evidence reflecting that the Beneficiary judged nine speakers for its continuing medical 
education (CME) committee from 2016 - 2018. 6 However, the Petitioner did not establish that these 
instances place the Beneficiary among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
The Petitioner did not show, for example, how the Beneficiary's experience in reviewing speakers for 
its own committee, as well as recommending graduate medical students, compares to others at the very 
top of the field. 
and to persist in making an effort over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expe1iise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 The Petitioner provided evidence showing that the Beneficiary's MBBS is equivalent to a doctor of medicine degree in 
the United States. Fmthennore, the Beneficiary satisfied the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. 
5 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 The Petitioner also provided a 2010 letter from.___~------'' residency program director atl I who 
generally claimed that the Beneficiary was "also a member ofour observership evaluation committee which screens foreign 
medical graduates applying for observership postings within our~nt." In addition, the Petitioner presented a letter 
froml I graduate medical education official atl______jwho broadly asse1ied that the Beneficiary "was 
able to make recommendations for choosing excellent candidates." 
3 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's recent judging instances 
contribute to a finding that he has a career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that the Beneficiary garnered wide attention from 
the field rather than limited to the Petitioner's own committee. Moreover, serving on a committee 
reviewing speakers does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability 
and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Without evidence that sets 
the Beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of 
reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, serving in editorial positions for 
distinguished journals or publications, or chairing technical committees for reputable conferences, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's judging experience places him among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 
Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Further, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. 7 The record 
reflects that the Beneficiary authored an article in 2013 and 2016. However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the Beneficiary's limited publication record is consistent with having a career of 
acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. The Petitioner did not submit 
evidence showing the significance of the Beneficiary's authorships or how his publications compare 
to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's authorships reflect 
being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. 
Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Beneficiary's written work can 
be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have had on the field and 
whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article 
authored by the Beneficiary may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that 
others have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is 
appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner provided 11 articles that 
cited to the Beneficiary's written work. While the citation of the Beneficiary's work shows that some 
in his field have noticed it, the Petitioner has not established that such citations are sufficient to 
demonstrate a level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the citation 
numbers represent attention at a level consistent with being among that small percentage at the very 
top of the Beneficiary's field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that recount the Petitioner's research and 
findings and indicate their publications in two journals without demonstratin how they have 
influenced the field in a significant manner. For instance, stated that the 
Beneficiary's "research contributes to promotion of expedited healing." However, .__ ___ __,did not 
further elaborate and explain how the Petitioner's research or article contributed to promoting healing. 
7 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
Moreover, the letters speculate on the potential influence and on the possibility of being majorly 
significant at some point in the future. For example,.__ ________ __. claimed that the 
Beneficiary's article "will impact my practice in a positive way and improve my quality of care," and 
'-----~------' asserted that the "information summarized in this article will lay future 
foundation of progressive research in concussion evaluation and management." Here, the significant 
impact of the Beneficiary's work on the field has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the letters do not 
show that the Beneficiary is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few, as being among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has made impactful or influential contributions 
through his written work in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the field, 
garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted evidence reflecting that the Beneficiary presented his work at various 
conferences, such as the Family Medicine Education Consortium Northeast Region Meeting and 
American Medical Society for Sports Medicine. However, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary's presentations are consistent with having a career of acclaimed work and sustaining 
national or international acclaim. For instance, the Petitioner did not show the significance of the 
Beneficiary's presentations, how his overall presentations compare to others who are viewed to be at 
the very top of the field, or whether he received notoriety or wide attention based on his presentations. 
See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary's presentations reflect being among the small percentage at the very 
top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
As it relates to the Beneficiary's roles, as mentioned above, the Petitioner employs him as a sports 
medicine physician. In addition, the Beneficiary serves as its founder and director of the I I 
clinic. Further, as indicated earlier, the Beneficiary co-chairs the Petitioner's CME committee. 
Although the Petitioner documented the Beneficiary's roles, it did not demonstrate that he garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field be ond his em loyer. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. For example,__~------'I president and chief executive officer 
for the Petitioner, discussed the importance of the .__ ___ ___. clinic to the area and indicated that it 
"is an integral part of the [Petitioner] and the creation of the clinic has driven the success of the 
institution as a whole," and "[i]t has helped to fill the gaps in the specialized medical service needs in 
the community." Here,.__ ___ ___.commented on the Beneficiary's limited, local impact to the 
Petitioner and surrounding community without showing how he or his work has been recognized on a 
national or international scale. 
Likewise, although the Petitioner provided two reference letters frorril I indicating that the 
Beneficiary served as the education chief for the center and member of the observer selection 
committee, it did not establish that his roles or accomplishments garnered any acclaim from the field, 
including a level of attention consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's 
professional career spanning over ten years represents a career of acclaimed work and sustained 
national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
While the Beneficiary's letters praised his professional experience and accomplishments, they did not 
show how his roles resulted in acclaim beyond his employers, such as significant attention from the 
5 
greater field or that overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for 
the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those 
progressing toward the top. Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory 
standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage 
at the very top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6