remanded EB-1A Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 2, 2023 In Re: 27572282 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner, a medical doctor who researches rare diseases, seeks classification under the 
employment-based, first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with 
"extraordinary ability ." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1 )(A). This category requires petitioners to demonstrate sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition of their achievements in their fields of expertise through extensive 
documentation . Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met two of ten initial evidentiary criteria - one less than required . On appeal, the Petitioner 
contends that, in her field, the Director overlooked proof of her satisfaction of other evidentiary 
criteria, including : receipt of national awards for excellence; membership in associations requiring 
outstanding achievement; and original, scientific contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence . Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 589 (BIA 1988) (citation omitted) . 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated original, scientific contributions of major 
significance to her field . We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary decision. Because the 
Director did not make a final merits determination as to whether the Petitioner established 
extraordinary ability in the field, we will also remand the matter for entry of a new decision . 1 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the requested immigrant visa category , a petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• They have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education , business, or athletics;" 
• They seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Their work would substantially benefit the country. 
1 We decline the Petitioner 's request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(l) , (2). We do not find her personal 
appearance necessary to resolve this matter. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise commensurate with "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) . Evidence 
of extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary standards. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). If a petitioner meets either of these initial evidentiary requirements , U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) then determines whether the record, as a whole, establishes 
sustained national or international acclaim and recognized achievements that demonstrate a 
noncitizen's ranking among the small percentage at the very top of their field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 
596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring a two-part analysis of extraordinary ability). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, an Indian native and citizen, is a licensed 
physician who works in the United States as 
a clinical assistant professor at a medical school and a doctor at a hospital. She also independently 
researches rare diseases lacking treatment protocols. In 2016, she successfully self-petitioned in the 
employment-based, second-preference (EB-2) immigrant visa category, earning a "national interest" 
waiver of the category's job-offer requirement. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. 2 
The Petitioner does not claim - nor does the record indicate - her receipt of a major international award. 
She must therefore meet at least three of ten lesser evidentiary standards. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The Director found that, in the Petitioner's field, she demonstrated her participation as a judge of 
others' work and as an author of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi). She asserts 
further qualifications in the field as a: recipient of national awards for excellence; member of 
associations requiring achievements that recognized national or international experts judged to be 
outstanding; and provider of original contributions of major significance. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v). 
Contrary to the Director's decision, we find sufficient evidence of the Petitioner's "original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Under this criterion, USCIS first determines whether a petitioner has made 
original contributions in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2) App'x, 
www.uscis.gov/policy -manual. If so, the Agency then considers the contributions' significance . Id. 
Contributions do not necessarily have major significance just because they are original. Id. A 
petitioner must submit evidence of their importance, such as their generation of widespread 
commentary, notice from others working in the field, or citations. Id. 
The Petitioner contends that her research on rare diseases constitutes original contributions in her field. 
She says these contributions have major significance because other clinicians use her research as "de 
facto guidelines" in treating rare diseases. 
2 Noncitizen physicians may receive national interest waivers in the EB-2 category if: they qualify as members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or noncitizens of"exceptional ability;" agree to work full-time as physicians in areas 
lacking health care professionals or at U.S. veterans hospitals ; and federal agencies or state health departments find their 
proposed work to be "in the public interest." Sections 203(b)(2)(A), (B) of the Act. 
2 
-----------
The record establishes the Petitioner's ori inal contributions to the field. Evidence shows her 
discoveries, for exam le, that a previously ignored contaminant, can cause 
infection and that, ____ - a cancer medication, causes infection-like symptoms in some patients . 
The Director, however, concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her original 
contributions have major significance. The Director faulted evidence that her published research 
articles had been downloaded from the Internet more than 40,000 times. The Director noted that, 
without evidence of the downloads' purposes, their number does not establish the significance of the 
Petitioner's work. 
The Director acknowledged letters from other physicians praising the Petitioner's original research. 
But the Director stated: "None of the letters specifically articulate how the petitioner's contributions 
are of major significance to the field as a whole, nor provide specific analysis of the impact of any 
contributions on subsequent work." The Director found that the record lacks examples of "real world 
applications" that benefited from the Petitioner's work and are widely accepted in the field. 
The Director, however, overlooked evidence of the significance of the Petitioner's original 
contributions . We acknowledge that the number ofresearch article downloads was not probative . But 
she submitted other documentation demonstrating that, since 2017, her 34 published aiiicles have 
generated more than 120 citations from researchers, including one article with 17 citations. This and 
other evidence shows that her original research has significance. 
Also, letters from other doctors indicate that the importance of the Petitioner's original research is 
substantial. A German professor of nuclear medicine praised the Petitioner's research on 
and other "contaminants." The professor stated that the Petitioner's 
treatment protocols for these newly discovered infectants "vastly improve the chances of successful 
treatment of such rare infections in patients worldwide ." The professor also noted that, in discovering 
I I link to periaortitis, an inflammatory condition typically affecting the abdominal aorta, 
the Petitioner used PET (positron emission tomography) scans to diagnose inflammation . The 
professor stated: "These findings help radiologists increase differential diagnosis whenever features 
of periaortitis are found." 
Further, a doctor at l !Hospital stated that the Petitioner's original research on rare 
diseases "helps prevent misdiagnosis leading to increased healthcare and legal costs." The doctor also 
stated that the Petitioner's research has proved the efficacy of next-generation DNA ( deoxyribonucleic 
acid) sequencing and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing in diagnosing infections from rare 
pathogens and unusual presentations of common pathogens in hospital settings. 
Thus, contrary to the Director's decision, we find that the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated 
original scientific contributions to her field of major significance. Because she meets at least three of 
the 10 initial evidentiary standards, we need not review the Director's findings regarding her claimed 
receipt of national awards for excellence in the field and membership in associations requiring 
outstanding achievements in the field. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their decisions); see also 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach an alternative appellate 
issue where an applicant did not otherwise qualify for the requested relief). 
3 
The Director did not consider whether the Petitioner has received sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognition of her achievements sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in her 
field. Because we decline to make this final merits determination in the first instance, we will remand 
the matter. 
On remand, the Director should review the entire record and determine whether the Petitioner has 
established herself among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. 
The Director should then enter a new decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner met the preliminary evidentiary requirements of the requested immigrant visa category. 
USCIS must now determine whether she has demonstrated extraordinary ability in her field. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4