dismissed EB-1A Case: Urology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22642744 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 28, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a doctor who seeks classification 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did he demonstrate he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future . 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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 international 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 criteria 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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a urologist who has studied the integration of traditional and western medicine, and 
was the director of urological surgery at his hospital when he filed the petition. Because the Petitioner 
has not indicated or established that he 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). Before 
the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met the following eight categories: 
• Lesser prizes or awards; 
• Membership; 
• Published material; 
• Participation as a judge; 
• Contributions of major significance; 
• Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• Performance of a leading or critical role for distinguished entities; and 
• High salary or remuneration. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to judging and the 
authorship of scholarly articles, but he had not satisfied the other criteria listed above. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he meets the evidentiary criteria relating to published material and awards. 
But he does not raise and has therefore abandoned or waived his claims under the membership, original 
contributions, leading or critical role, and high salary or remuneration criteria. Matter of 
Mariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 672 (BIA 2022). After reviewing all the evidence in the 
record, we conclude he has not demonstrated eligibility for this highly restrictive classification. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements, all of which must be met to satisfy the regulation. 
According to the plain language of the regulation the evidence must establish: ( 1) the foreign national 
is the recipient of the prizes or the awards; (2) those accolades are nationally or internationally 
recognized; and (3) each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner 
2 
claimed several awards and the Director determined that each was not nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field, or the record did not establish they were issued for excellence in the field. 
First, in his appeal the Petitioner essentially restates his claims as presented to the Director and does 
not describe how the Director might have erred in their analysis as it relates to his awards. Further, 
we conclude the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate his awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field. 
The Petitioner presented his 2010 third prize ___________ ward issued by the 
municipal government in I I As this award was issued by the municipal government, and because 
the Petitioner has not offered probative material establishing its recognition goes beyond the issuing 
entity, it appears to be regional in nature. Even accolades issued by a government might not be 
nationally recognized in the field. A petitioner should offer probative evidence showing an award 
receives at least national-level attention that goes beyond the issuing governing body (e.g., within a 
petitioner's field). The Petitioner has not offered evidence demonstrating this award is nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field. 
Next, the Petitioner submits two awards issued by the Medicine. 
In 2020, this organization issued him a first prize award and in 2011 they granted him the second prize 
award; each accolade was a science and technology award. We observe the translated document 
detailing this award's plans reflects that this award is issued to collectives and individuals who have 
achieved a certain level of results in basic study. However, the document continues stating "[p ]rojects 
that have won this award will be recommended for National Science and Technology Awards based 
on the principle of meritocracy." The Petitioner's awards appear to be at a level lesser than those that 
are nationally or internationally recognized in the field. 
The final awards the Petitioner claims on appeal are third prize science and technology awards in the 
2007 and 20 l 0 events. Thel Medical Sciences issued these awards. Even 
though we acknowledge the issuing entity's reputation, the Petitioner has not established that these 
awards, from more than a decade before he filed the petition, were nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field. National and international recognition results, not from the individual who 
signed or issued the prize or the award, but through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the 
field nationally or internationally. This recognition should be evident through specific means; for 
example, but not limited to, national or international-level media coverage. Sufficiently probative 
evidence that an award is nationally or internationally recognized is generally material from sources 
besides the issuing entity. Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 183 (D.N.J. 2021). 
Although the Petitioner demonstrates he has received accolades for his work, we conclude he has not 
submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
3 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Within the appeal, the Petitioner identifies the authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and for supportive evidence under that requirement, he discusses an article that the 
Petitioner did not author. It is unclear why the Petitioner has identified this evidence on appeal as the 
Director determined his evidence satisfied the scholarly articles criterion. In case the brief mistakenly 
placed the discussion of published material under the portion in which the Petitioner mentions 
scholarly articles, we discuss the published material criterion here. 
The Petitioner discussed one article before the Director, and he presents the same material on appeal. 
While the Director focused on other requirements in their denial decision, we also note additional 
deficiencies. First, the article is in a foreign language but it is not accompanied by a certified 
translation, which is a requirement of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The regulation requires that the translator 
certifies the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified 
English language translation of the document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated 
material is accurate and thus supports his claims. The information relating to this publication has a 
translation suffering from this same shortcoming. 
Moreover, the translated material does not contain the article's date as the regulation requires. Finally, 
the Petitioner did not identify the circulation figures for other publications in China by which it can be 
determined through comparison that Long Life Magazine is one of the qualifying publication types. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 (Appendices), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (noting 
that "[ee ]vidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other major 
media publications about the person should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high 
compared to other circulation statistics .... "). In summary, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence 
that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward that goal. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of their work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b )(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
4 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their 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. 
5