sustained EB-1A Case: Neurological Surgery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 15, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor of neurological surgery, 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 although the Petitioner had satisfied three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, 
he had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim and shown that he is one of the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he has sustained 
the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
Upon de nova review, we will sustain 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter ofV-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). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material ifhe 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 his or her 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). 
11. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as an assistant professor in the department of 
neurological surgery at The As the Petitioner has not indicated or established 
that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the initial evidentiary requirements. 
A Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi), respectively. As the record supports those 
findings, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination 
below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the record satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) , we will 
analyze the Petitioner'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. We 
evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , making him one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
2 
.
Matter ofV-K-
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. In the present matter, the Petitioner has shown his eligibility for this 
classification. 
The Petitioner received a Master of Science at of Public Health (2005) and a Bachelor 
of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery at (2003). His resume 
reflects he worked as a fellow in stereotactic and functional neurosurgery (2013-2015) and has worked 
as an assistant professor in the department of neurological surgery at The ______ smce 
2016. 
With respect to his scholarly articles, the Petitioner has provided evidence of his authorship of a 
considerable amount of published material, including numerous articles that appeared in distinguished 
professional journals, as well as a book chapter. As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientists 
and researchers, the citation history and other evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's articles is 
an important indicator of the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether 
such influence has been sustained. In this case, the Petitioner has offered reports from Google Scholar 
and Microsoft Academic Research reflecting hundreds of citations to his published work to present, 
as well as evidence documenting that the rate at which his articles have been cited is very high for his 
field. The number of research articles he has coauthored and their unusually high rate of citation are 
commensurate with being among the small percentage at the very top of the field and demonstrate that 
his publication record sets him apart through a "career of acclaimed work in the field." See H. Rep. 
No. 101-723, at 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Importantly, the influence of the Petitioner's research is further evidenced through recommendation 
letters that identify his original contributions in the development of neurosurgery methods, and explain 
how those advancements have significantly impacted his field. Several letters, from both colleagues 
and independent experts, discuss the Petitioner's research advancements in the area of deep brain 
stimulation surgery, including his work relating to electrode placement and the use of anesthetics in 
such surgeries. For example, at The 
describes the Petitioner's findings on improving the accuracy of targeted electrode placement as 
"nothing short of a breakthrough in [Deep Brain Stimulation] surgery," and discusses outside interest 
and communications the Petitioner has received regarding the use of his tractography-based method 
for ultrasound surgery. Similarly, of 
School, attests that the Petitioner's findings on tractography-based targeting 
"have helped to create a new paradigm in the field of neurosurgery," and states that his "research has 
garnered a substantial amount of attention throughout the wider scientific community." 
also describes specific examples of how the Petitioner's methods and findings in this research have 
been used by several research teams at various institutions. 
In addition, a professor and chair of the neurological surgery department at the 
contends that the Petitioner has provided "invaluable 
information regarding the anesthetics used during [deep brain stimulation] surgery" and identified how 
"dexmedetomidine changes the bursting pattern of neurons, increasing the risk that the electrode is 
placed improperly, leading to dire consequences for the patient." Likewise, a 
professor at _______ states that the Petitioner 's research "greatly advanced the quest for 
3 
.
Matter ofV-K-
an ideal anesthetic agent" in deep brain stimulation surgery, and attests to the important clinical 
applications of his findings. 
Beyond the Petitioner's past contributions, we note that the record reflects significant interest relating 
to his current research investigating and improving the use of 
as a non-surgical alternative treatment for disorders such as Parkinson's disease and 
epilepsy. In addition to letters discussing the significance of this work, the record includes media 
coverage of the clinical trials that the Petitioner is leading. This attention regarding the Petitioner's 
ongoing work further contributes to a finding that he has sustained acclaim and is among the small 
percentage at the top of his field. 
With regard to his participation as a judge of others' work, the record indicates that the Petitioner has 
reviewed over 50 manuscripts for a large number of renowned professional publications, served as a 
member of the editorial board for and reviewed grant proposals 
for the We find the Petitioner's extensive judging experience, 
together with the achievements described above, to be consistent with a determination that he is among 
the small percentage at the top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Finally, the record includes ample documentary evidence supporting the aforementioned independent 
references' statements regarding the Petitioner's standing in the field and the significance and 
originality of his work. In addition to the extensive number of citations to his articles, he provides 
documentation showing that his work has received significant attention and is being utilized by other 
research organizations. In summary, the Petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability. The 
totality of the evidence establishes that he possesses a level of expertise that is consistent with a finding 
that he is one of a small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor and that he has documented 
sustained acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
his achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. Lastly, the Petitioner has 
shown that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise. He therefore qualifies for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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. § l36l ;Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&NDec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden 
has been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofV-K- , ID# 02070834 (AAO Apr. 15, 2019) 
4