dismissed EB-1A Case: Therapeutic Ultrasound

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-P-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 23, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a postdoctoral research associate in therapeutic ultrasound, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief: arguing that she satisfies at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of C-P-K-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of ~------------
1 I Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of two manuscripts 
for a journal. In addition, she authored eight scholarly articles in professional publications. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles 
criteria. Further, we find that the Petitioner contributed in developing a real-time imaging system for 
an ultrasound therapy for aesthetic improvement I I resulting in a contribution of major 
significance in the field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that 
she satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 
2 
Matter of C-P-K-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
According to her curriculum vitae, the Petitioner received her bachelor of technology in 
instrumentation engineering at the I I Institute of Technology (India) in 2005, doctor of 
philosophy in biomedical engineering at the University ot1 lin 2012, and master of business 
administration at I I in 2015. Moreover, the Petitioner indicated that 
she held several postdoctoral research associate, research assistant, and internship positions since 
2005, including her most recent appointments as a postdoctoral research associate at the State 
University ofl ~ and D. As mentioned above, the Petitioner judged others within 
her field, authored scholarly articles, and made a contribution through her research. The record, 
however, does not demonstrate that her achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding her service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of her experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The record reflects that the 
Petitioner reviewed two papers for Physics in Medicine and Biology in 2013 and 2015. Moreover, the 
Petitioner submitted a letter froml l I I for Ultrasound in Medicine 
and Biology, who indicated that the Petitioner served in the editorial assistantship position where 
"[ s ]he screened manuscripts submitted for publication and checked the format and content to make 
sure each paper could be adequately reviewed." However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she 
actually served as a judge reviewing papers in determining their suitability or acceptability for 
publication. Furthermore, the Petitioner offered a letter froml l D.esearch Park, 
who stated that the Petitioner participated on c::J Patent Review Board where she "made 
recommendations to reject a patent application, to request more information from the inventor, to keep 
the invention as a trade secret, or to publish the invention." 2 
Here, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that her two manuscript reviews, as well 
as her membership on the Patent Review Board, places her among the small percentage at the very top 
of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). She did not show, for example, how the number ofreviews 
1 See also USCTS 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 ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCTS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
2 I I did not elaborate on the extent of her membership with the Patent Review Board, such as her length of service 
or the number of reviews she conducted. 
3 
Matter of C-P-K-
she conducted or the number of journals she served compares to others at the top of the field. 
Furthermore, the record reflects that her paper reviews occurred in 2013 and 2015. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not establish that these two instances contribute to a finding that she has a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. at 59. Participation in the 
peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of her field. Without evidence that sets her apart from others in 
her field, such as evidence that she has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of 
review requests relative to others, served in editorial positions for distinguished journals or 
publications, or chaired technical committees for reputable conferences, the Petitioner has not 
established that her peer review experience places here among that small percentage at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, publication of a petitioner's research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 
Here, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that she authored eight articles in professional 
journals and seven presentation papers at the time she filed her petition. However, the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that this publication record is consistent with having a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In addition, 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 ). She has not shown that her authorship of eight published articles and seven presentation 
papers is reflective of being among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists and researchers, the citation 
history or other evidence of the influence of her articles can be an indicator to determine the impact 
and recognition that her work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For 
example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner may provide solid 
evidence that her work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by her 
work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner initially provided evidence reflecting 
that her eight published articles garnered 85 citations and her seven paper presentations received 20. 
While the Petitioner's citations, both individually and collectively, show that field has noticed her 
work, she has not established that such rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest 
in her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to her research represent attention 
at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has submitted ublished material as evidence of her acclaim. The record contains 
screenshots reporting on as well as the creation of the medical company,! I and its 
subsequent purchase b..__ _ __. However, the screenshots do not demonstrate that the Petitioner herself 
has garnered acclaim from this ultrasound therapy. Rather, the screenshots specifically reference 
another individualj l as the principal investigator and quote him. The press coverage 
of I , 0 I does not mention the Petitioner. Although she contributed to the research and 
4 
Matter of C-P-K-
development ofl I the media reports do not single her out or acknowledge her for her findings. 
Here, the Petitioner does not establish that this media coverage is reflective of her status as an 
individual who has garnered "sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. 
Moreover, although she claims to have made additional contributions of major significance, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate they have had remarkable influence in the overall field. Rather, she 
provided documentary evidence discussing their potential impact on the field. For instance, the 
Petitioner offered evidence showing that she contributed to the development of I I an 
ultrasound device for treating musculoskeletal injuries. However, the media coverage reflects the 
possible application without demonstrating that the field already recognizes it as a contribution of 
major significance. Similarly, the Petitioner submitted screenshots announcing the launch of the 
device which indicate that it "is intended to revolutionize the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries for 
people with chronic pain," "will revolutionize the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries, especially for 
people with chronic pain," and "it represents the best possibility of treatment." Here, the evidence 
speculates on the prospect of being majorly significant. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not submit 
evidence to establish that she received any sustained national or international acclaim and has been 
recognized in the field as being among the small percentage at the very top of the field from her work 
witH I See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record also contains recommendation letters that summarize the Petitioner's research and original 
contributions but do not demonstrate that she is among that small percentage at the very top of her 
field of endeavor or that she has sustained national or international acclaim. Instead, the authors make 
general assertions repeating the statute and regulations. For instance.I I director of 
cardiology segment atl I, opined that he "would characterize [the 
Petitioner] as one among that small percentage of researchers at the very top of the field of improving 
therapeutic ultrasound.".__ ____ _., professor at I !Institute of Technology, claimed 
that the Petitioner's "contributions to the field have had an unparalleled impact on the advancement 
of therapeutic ultrasound and its usage in clinical settings, demonstrating her extraordinary ability in 
the field and her place among that small percentage of researchers at the very top of the field." In 
additio11 ,I [ associate professor at the University ofl !indicated that "[t]he 
direct applicability of [ the Petitioner's] findings to clinical care places her among that small percentage 
of researchers at the very top of the filed worldwide." Although the letters recount the Petitioner's 
research and highlight her findings, they do not explain or justify their assertions. 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), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Here, the letters do not provide 
sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, 
to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field as being among that small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the 
5 
Matter of C-P-K-
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level 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 she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the 
small percentage at the top of her field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofC-P-K-, ID# 3521169 (AAO July 23, 2019) 
6