remanded EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 20, 2023 In Re : 27693225 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a physician , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 
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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria required for eligibility . The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis . 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business , or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability ; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 a one­
time achievement (that is, a major , internationally recognized award) . If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they 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 they are 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). 
The Petitioner, a gastroenterologist specializing in pancreatology, seeks to continue this work in the 
United States. Since he does not claim to have a one-time achievement, he must submit evidence 
meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner only submitted evidence establishing eligibility for two criteria: 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), authorship of scholarly articles, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), commanding a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration. 
The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence for the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade 
publications, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Because the Petitioner did not meet at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, the Director denied 
the petition. 
An officer must folly explain the reasons for denying a visa petition to grant the petitioner a fair 
opportunity to contest the decision and allow an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786, 777-78 (BIA 1994). On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the denial notice in this case does not address his evidence and appears to have 
confused his record with that of another petitioner. Upon review, for the reasons discussed below, we 
find that the Director's decision did not adequately address all of the claimed evidentiary criteria or 
analyze the evidence provided, and so did not folly explain the reasons the petition was denied. 
First, the denial's analysis of the original contributions criterion 1 misstates the Petitioner's medical 
specialty and states a list of the Petitioner's exhibits that does not correspond to the documents that 
were actually provided. While the Director does analyze the Petitioner's evidence at other points, this 
portion of the decision appears to reflect the contents of a different record of proceeding. 
Second, the denial overlooks some evidence that the Petitioner did provide. For example, the decision 
letter states that the Petitioner did not provide "documentation comparing the citation records of the 
petitioner and similarly situated researchers in the field ... " In fact, the Petitioner provided a study 
of publication statistics in the field of acute pancreatitis research from 1999 to 2018. This article 
1 The section of the denial addressing the published material criterion did not contain deficiencies necessitating a remand. 
While it did not analyze the provided article regarding the Petitioner's receipt of an award for his volunteer medical service, 
the article was not accompanied by information about its author or where it was published, as required by regulation, and 
so cannot establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 
indicates, among other things, the mean impact factor and number of citations per article, thus 
providing a basis of comparison for evaluating the Petitioner's publication history. 
Finally, while the Director states that the Petitioner failed to provide "extensive documentation" in 
support of the original contributions criterion, this requirement comes from the statutory definition of 
extraordinary ability at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and a petitioner's fulfillment of this definition 
is only assessed after it has been determined that they meet the initial evidentiary requirements at 
8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. This standard should not be applied to 
individual criteria. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
Because the Director's decision did not adequately address the evidence of record, we will remand 
this matter. On remand, the Director should determine whether the Petitioner satisfied the plain 
language of at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and issue a new decision. 
As the Director did not conclude that the Petitioner met the requisite three evidentiary criteria, they 
were not required to conduct a final merits determination of whether the Petitioner has established that 
he possesses sufficient acclaim and standing in his field to warrant classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. If the Director determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria, the 
new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim 
and whether the record demonstrates that his achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise through extensive documentation, indicating that he is one of that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The Director may request any evidence considered relevant to the new decision. We express no 
opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3