dismissed O-1A Case: Cardiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24060256 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 06, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a cardiology fellow, as a person of extraordinary ability. 
To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant classification, available to individuals who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U .S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i) . 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in science: either receipt of a major , internationally recognized award or at least 
three of eight possible forms of documentation. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A)-(B). The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation . 
It asserts that it satisfies at least three of the eight regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
1 Appeals filed by representatives must contain a new, properly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as 
Attorney or Accredited Representative . 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a). At the time of filing the appeal, the Petitioner provided a copy 
of a prior Form G-28 for Shane Parker pre-dating the appeal. Because the Petitioner 's appeal does not contain a new, 
properly executed Form G-28, we consider it to be self-represented . 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 10l(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a cardiology fellow in the I ____ .... 
________ in the Department of Medicine. The Beneficiary 's CV indicates that since 
November 2020 he has been employed as a preventive cardiology fellow at the I I 
University inl I Maryland. In 2020 the Beneficiary also was employed as a chief resident in 
the Department ofl I at the University of I , Between 2016 and 2020 he was a postdoctoral researcher and completed his internal 
medicine residency at the I Medical Center in I !Pennsylvania . 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). The Director detennined that the Petitioner provided evidence 
relating to six criteria: awards at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l); published materials at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3);judging at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4); original contributions at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5); scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6); and critical or essential 
capacity at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The Director concluded that the Beneficiary fulfilled 
only two of those criteria, judging and scholarly articles. Although we agree with the Director that 
the Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in professional publications, we do not concur with the 
Director's finding relating to the judging criterion, discussed later. The Petitioner contends on appeal 
that the Beneficiary satisfies two additional criteria. 3 After reviewing all the submitted evidence, the 
record does not reflect that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of at least three criteria . 
2 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
3 The Director detennined that the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility under the awards criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) and the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). On appeal, the 
2 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
As discussed earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. This regulatory 
criterion requires a beneficiary to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same 
or an allied field of specialization. For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion, and the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion because he "is a reviewer for 
International Journal of Cardiology, ACC.org, and BMJ Case Reports" and claimed it has provided 
evidence that the Beneficiary has been invited to review submissions for these journals. 4 The record 
before us, however, does not contain documentation establishing the Beneficiary's participation as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or in an allied field. Rather, the Petitioner submitted invitations 
to the Beneficiary dated January 2021 and March 2021 from Acc.org to submit Expert Analysis articles 
on, respectively, the SCORED/SOLOIST-WHF clinical trials and the FIDELIO clinical trial; a letter 
dated March 2022 to the Beneficia and his co-authors indicatin that their article entitled ' 
_______________ - ___________________ was 
published in Dyslipidemia Clinical Topic Collection on ACC.org; a screenshot from Acc.org showing 
several Expert Analyses the Beneficiary co-authored that were published on the website between 
2021 and 2022; and general information from the websites of the International Journal of 
Cardiology and BMJ Case Reports. 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence establishing that the Beneficiary reviewed 
journal submissions for the International Journal of Cardiology, ACC.org, or BMJ Case Reports. 
Instead, as indicated above, the documentation reflects the Beneficiary authored several articles 
published in Acc.org and was invited by the American College of Cardiology to submit two other 
articles for publication. 
The Petitioner further asserted that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion because he has served as an 
instructor at I and has been a member of several teams and projects improving existing medical 
care, including the ACC diabetes and cardiometabolic disease team, the heart failure care improvement 
project, and the resident recruitment committee au I Medical Center. Although the Petitioner 
provided evidence of the Beneficia 's research projects, publications, 2019 nomination as an 
excellent h sician-teacher at Medical Center, and participation in the I I 
it has not submitted detailed, corroborated information about the 
Beneficiary's claimed activities fo ____ __,University,I l andl !Medical Center 
to show that the Beneficiary's involvement amounts to participation as a judge of the work of others. 
Petitioner does not contest the Director's specific findings for these criteria. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 
(9th Cir. 2011) (finding that issues not raised in a brief are deemed waived). 
4 In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary has not only been invited to judge the work of 
others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 
See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary participated as a 
judge of the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the 
decision of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In her decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of expert opinion letters 
discussing the Beneficiary's research, copies of excerpts of his published articles and abstracts, 
information regarding the journals in which he was published, and evidence that he has been cited by 
other researchers in their own published work. However, the Director determined that the evidence 
did not substantiate the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary had made original scientific 
contributions of major significance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give 
sufficient consideration to the evidence submitted in support of this criterion or consider the evidence 
in its totality. 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has the beneficiary made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 
petitioner may show that the beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented throughout 
the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary has made several scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field, specifically, that he has performed leading research on improvements to 
preventive cardiology, particularly in the new medical subspecialty of cardiometabolic medicine; he 
has created academic cardiometabolic programs; and he co-founded in 2021 the I I 
Clinic at I I University. Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the 
originality of the Beneficiary's work through recommendation letters praising him for his 
contributions, as discussed below, the authors do not provide specific examples of contributions that 
are indicative of major significance. In general, the letters recount the Beneficiary's research and 
findings, indicate their publications in journals and presentation at professional conferences, and point 
to the citation of his work by others. Although they reflect the novelty of the projects on which he 
worked, they do not show how his research and findings have been considered of such importance and 
how their impact on the field rises to the level required by this criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted several testimonial letters that address the significance of the Beneficia 's 
work. For instance, I director of clinical research for the 
Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and director of the center's 
clinic, discusses some of the Beneficiary's research projects, including his study on the prescribing of 
GLP 1-RA/SGL T-2 inhibitor therapies by clinical cardiologists in the United States and the future use 
of sotagliflozin and finerenone in clinical practice; his service as co-investigator of the 
I !Study evaluating the impact of statins on cognitive functions of elderly patients; his 
work to obtain data of 20 NHLBI funded cardiovascular cohorts through data pooling and 
harmonization to evaluate the impact of non-traditional tobacco products on cardiovascular outcomes; 
and his research as a co-investigator on the I Database on the prescription 
patterns of cardiometabolic therapies by different specialties. In addition,! I provides that he, 
4 
the Beneficiary, andl I successfully completed a six-part webinar series on the topic of 
cardiometabolic medicine sponsored by the American College of Cardiology and the Middle East 
Heart Society. While I letter describes the Beneficiary's various research projects, he does 
not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of preventive cardiology research rises to the 
level of an original contribution of major significance. For example, he does not discuss its specific 
impact or influence in the field. 
In addition, I I asserts that the Beneficiary has great potential "for a unique lasting academic 
career" and "is uniquely positioned" to be a leader in the new subspecialty of cardiometabolic 
medicine, but a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of 
the Beneficiary's future eligibility. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for 
the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The assertion that the Beneficiary's research or clinical results 
are likely to be influential is not adequate to establish that his findings are already recognized as 
original contributions of major significance in the field 
Further,! claims that the selection of the Beneficiary's 2019 poster as by 
the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shows his research "is not only 
original but has been significant and im ortant within the field." The record reflects that the 
Beneficia 's abstract entitled ' 
_______________________________ was among 20 
abstracts selected by the SCAI program committee from more than 380 to be highlighted at the 
conference, by front-row placement and a ribbon. Particularly significant awards 
may serve as evidence of the Beneficiary's impact and influence on his field, but the Petitioner has 
not demonstrated that the Beneficiary's 2019 abstract award has significance 
throughout the field as a whole, not just within the confines of the SCAI conference. 
Moreover,! I provides that in 2021 he and the Beneficiary co-founded the I I 
Clinic at I focused on using medications to help with diabetes control and weight loss, 
as well as promoting optimal lifestyle modification in patients at high risk of atherosclerotic 
cardiovascular disease or other adverse cardiovascular outcomes. I !explains that the clinic is 
primarily fellow-run under his supervision with the Beneficiary as the front-line clinical leader, and 
that it "has already received an overwhelmingly positive response from our referring physicians and 
patients." He states that "[a]mong post-doctoral fellows I have trained ... [the Beneficiary] ranks #1 
for his overall clinical performance, for his impact on our clinical practice .... " 
director and co-founder of the Center for The _________ 
Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease provides that the Beneficiary "was essential in the formation of 
the current! I Clinic, which has as its mission the management of 
obesity and behavioral aspects of prevention as well as the prescription of adjuvant medications for 
this purpose such as GLP-1 receptor agonists." He states that the clinic "has been spectacularly 
successful under [the Beneficiary's] leadership, offering critically needed services to our patients." 
He praises the Beneficiary's abilities as a clinician and educator, such as his ability to teach patients 
about the use of cardiometabolic drugs, obtain payer approval, schedule follow-up focusing on 
medication titration and lifestyle improvements, and provide clear communications to the patients' 
referring primary care clinicians and other cardiovascular specialists. Although the letters of I 
5 
and ____ praise the Beneficiary's clinical skills, they do not provide specific examples of 
contributions that are indicative of major significance or show that the impact of the Beneficiary's 
contributions extends beyond his own employer at the time . 
______ director of the internal medicine program atl I states that the Beneficiary 
was a member of the center's inaugural internal medicine residency program and praises his work with 
patients in the emergency, inpatient, and intensive care units. She provides that his work teaching and 
training medical interns and residents involved organizing a two-month intern boot camp teaching 
cardiovascular medicine and other topics . 
_____ a cardiology professor atl I states he has worked with the Beneficiary and 
that he has demonstrated outstanding organizational skills critical to the effective functioning of a busy 
cardiometabolic clinic at one of the top cardiology institutes in the United States . 
_____ a professor of cardiology at the University of __________ 
indicates he collaborated with the Beneficiary on presenting several sessions of the Beneficiary's six 
part online seminar series on Cardiometabolic Medicine, sponsored by the American Colle e of 
Cardiolo and the Middle East Cardiolo Societ . He asserts that their article ' 
___________________ " showing prescription inertia by cardiologists, 
has been accepted for publication by the Journal of the American Heart Association and "will be 
important to understand and improve patient, physician and health care system behaviors which will 
hopefully improve outcomes of cardioprotective therapies for these patients worldwide." As stated, 
the assertion that the Beneficiary's research results are likely to be influential is not adequate to 
establish that his findings are already recognized as original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
_____ the Beneficiary's postdoctoral research mentor atl IMedical Center, states 
that as a resident he was an astute clinician who was exceptional in his treatment of patients and was 
nominated as teacher-of-the-year by the medical students of four medical colleges rotating atl I 
Medical Center. He collaborated on the project and spearheaded 
several critical cardiovascular research projects. He "showed excellent leadership skills" by working 
as an active member of the resident selection committee and heart failure care improvement project. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the novelty and utility of the 
Beneficiary's research studies without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level 
consistent with major significance. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Overall, none of the expert letters 
elaborated or discussed whether the Beneficiary's findings have been implemented beyond informing 
the research of other scientists in the same field, and if so, the extent of their application. While the 
letters praise the Beneficiary's research as original, valuable, and promising, they have not sufficiently 
detailed in what ways his studies have already advanced the state of research in his field or elaborated 
on how the Beneficiary's work has already impacted the wider field beyond the teams of researchers 
who have directly cited his articles. 
6 
The Petitioner further highlights the Beneficiary's publication and citation record from Google 
Scholar, but this evidence does not show that the impact of his work on the overall field of preventive 
cardiology research rises to the level of an original contribution of major significance. The Petitioner 
emphasizes that the Beneficiary has authored 30 articles in professional journals. As one type of 
evidence of the impact of his work, it provided an April 2022 Google Scholar citation history reflecting 
132 cumulative citations to those articles, authored by him between 2016 and 2021. Specifically, the 
record shows that his three highest cited articles received 49 (Indian Journal of Psychological 
Medicine), 23 (Respiratory Medicine Case Reports), and 10 (Case Reports 2016) citations, 
respectively. 5 While the Beneficiary's citations, both individually and collectively, show that the field 
has noticed his work, he has not established that such rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate a 
level of interest in his field commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." In 
addition, although the Petitioner submits evidence that others in the field may have downloaded and 
read the Beneficiary's articles, as stated the documentary evidence does not show that his articles have 
been extensively cited by independent researchers or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. While the Petitioner submitted corroborating evidence in the form of expert 
opinion letters, that evidence, for the reasons already discussed, is not sufficient to establish that any 
of the Beneficiary's research findings, individually or collectively, has made a remarkable impact or 
influence in his field. 
In addition, the Petitioner emphasizes that the Beneficiary's work has been published in highly 
reputable national journals. It provided information from the websites of several of those journals 
listing their impact factors. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that publication of the 
Beneficiary's articles in highly ranked journals establishes that the field considers his research to be 
an original contribution of major significance. Moreover, a publication that bears a high ranking or 
impact factor is reflective of the publication's overall citation rate. It does not show an author's 
influence or the impact of research on the field or that every article published in a highly ranked journal 
automatically indicates a contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner also provided research articles that cited to the Beneficiary's work. A review of those 
articles, though, does not show the significance of the Beneficiary's research or demonstrate how it 
has widely impacted the field. For instance, the Petitioner places particular emphasis on a citation to 
the Beneficiary's work in the 2021 article titled' 
I ( (Catheterization and Cardiovascular lnterventions). The 
document indicates it is official SCAI uidance and shows citation to the Beneficiar 's 2020 article 
titled' 
" (Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions). It does not distinguish or 
highlight the Beneficiary's written work from the 128 other cited papers. Rather, the document cited 
his article as a source for suggesting that "[ff]or emergent catheterization procedures of patients with a 
history of prior contrast reactions, the strategy of using an emergency medication preparation followed 
by immediate catheterization appears to be associated with a very low risk of break-through contrast 
reactions." The article does not otherwise address the impact of this research or the importance of the 
Beneficiary's findings in this study, rather, it reflects that similar studies had already been undertaken 
5 Of the Beneficiary's remaining publications, 1 7 received between 8 and 1 citations, while 10 publications did not receive 
any citations. 
7 
by other researchers. 6 This article and others like it acknowledge the Beneficiary's contributions to 
the advancement of what appears to be an active area of research but are not indications that his work 
has substantially influenced the field or otherwise rises to the level of an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's research projects, the 
and I I are being funded, respectively, by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the 
American Heart Association (AHA). Receiving funding to conduct research is not a contribution of 
major significance in-and-of itself. Rather, the Petitioner must establish that the Beneficiary's receipt 
of the grants are reflective of his past work's major significance, or that his research conducted with 
the NIH and AHA grants resulted in a contribution of major significance in the field. The record does 
not contain evidence that illustrates how the funding reflects the importance of the Beneficiary's 
contributions, or indicating the research results of the NIH or AHA funding and whether they are 
majorly significant in the field. 
Although the Petitioner provides additional documentation on appeal, including a letter from 
lof SCAI, and additional letters from I land 
I we will not consider new eligibility claims or evidence for the first time on appeal. See Matter 
of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of 
the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, 
we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal of any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the 
appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Considered together, the evidence consisting of the citations to the Beneficiary's published findings, 
the citation statistics, and the reference letters from his fellow researchers and other experts, establishes 
that the Beneficiary has been a productive researcher, and that his published data and findings have 
been relied upon by others in their own research. It does not demonstrate, however, that the 
Beneficiary has made a contribution of major significance in the field of preventive cardiology. 
Therefore, he has not met this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner established that the Beneficiary met the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6), but it did not demonstrate that he meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4) and (5). Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for one 
additional criterion on appeal, relating to employment in a critical or essential capacity at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), we need not reach this ground because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial 
evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We also need 
not provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has arisen to the very top of the field. 
See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii). 7 Accordingly, we 
6 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 See also 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
8 
reserve these issues. 8 Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for the 0-1 visa classification 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. 
8 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-6 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to 
make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9