dismissed O-1A Case: Medical Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Room A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 04 081 53036 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
PETITION: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 1 0 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5j 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
J 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
Q/~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 04 081 53036 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Texas Service Center Director denied the instant nonirnmigrant visa petition in a decision 
dated May 18,2004.' The petitioner timely appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). 
The matter is now before the AAO on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a health care provider, seeking 0-1 classification of the beneficiary, under section 
1 0 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U. S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(0)(i), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in medical science. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United 
States for a period of three years as a transplant surgeon. 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 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. 
The issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has shown that the beneficiary qualifies for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in medical science as defined by the statute and the 
regulations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary abiliq in the jeld of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thejelds of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following fonns of documentation: 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
The petitioner previously filed a Form 1-129 petition on the beneficiary's behalf that was denied. In March 2004, an 
appeal was dismissed. In July 2004, the AAO granted the petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider its decision, and 
' 
affirmed the prior decisions of the director and AAO. (SRC 04 028 50326). 
SRC 04 081 53036 
Page 3 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, which 
shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary 
translation; 
(4) 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 classification 
is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
The beneficiary in this matter is a 42-year old citizen of Israel and Romania. The record reflects that he received 
his medical degree in 1987 from the Carol Davilla University, Bucharest, Romania. He completed an internship 
in internal medicine at the Bucharest University Hospital. He then completed a three-year residency program in 
surgery at the Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. He completed a fellowship program in the 
department of liver transplantation at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. He most recently completed a 
fellowship in transplant surgerylislet cell transplantation at the Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 
The record reflects that he was last admitted to the United States on June 26, 2000, in J-1 classification, as an 
exchange visitor subject to the two-year foreign residency requirement. 
There is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award equivalent to that 
listed at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). Neither is the record persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
met at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
For criterion number one, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has received two nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence: the Israeli Ministry of Health Award for Excellence in 
Service and the Baylor University Medical Center's Seeger Grant. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
m 
ashington Hospital Center, Washington D.C., that states 
he trained at the Chaim Sheba Medica enter an is "well aware of the existence of the Ministry of Health 
Award for Excellence in serviceher stated that the "selection process is very competitive" and 
"award winners are selected each year from more than 1000 physicians, based on peer recommendations." 
SRC 04 081 53036 j 1 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted a letter written b rofessor of Surgery and Deputy Director of the 
Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel 
The Ministry of Health confers this award each year to employees in the public health 
service who have excelled in the line of duty for a minimum of two years. 
The nominees are evaluated by a multi-disciplinary committee of senior staff members, and 
the award is in recognition of both professional and personal performance and dedication. , 
The competition is open to all of approximately 1500 employees at ow medical center, and 
the fact that it was awarded t-as indeed a sign of the high esteem in which he 
was held by superiors and peers, the members of the medical team, and by the patients and 
their families. 
/ 
It is noted that there is a possible discrepancy between the letters of dicated 
that this competition is open to "all of approximately 1500 employees at our medical center;" whereas Dr. Mib 
stated that a&d winners are selected from 1000 physicians. I& any event, the evidence clearly indicates th2 the 
award is an institutional award, limited to employees at one medical center and as such, is not a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The beneficiary received a Seeger Grant in the amount of $75,000 for his work in pancreatic islet cell 
transplantation from Baylor University, an affiliate of the petitioner. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts 
that the relevant regulation does not specifically require that the award given only be an award to honor or 
recognize past achievement; "there may be dual intent," i.e., funding for a meritorious proposal and to honor an 
individual's reputation and past achievements. 
Counsel's argument is not persuasive. It is clear that the committee that reviews grant proposals is primarily 
concerned with the merit of each proposal. The AAO has consistently found that grants are not awqds for 
excellence within the meaning of the regulation. The beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classiJication is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in their disciplines orpelds. 
For criterion number two, the beneficiary is a member of the American Society of Transplantation (AST), the 
Texas Medical Association (TMA), the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), and the Mayo 
Medical Alumni Association. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's membership in ASTS and the Mayo Medical 
Alumni Association satisfies this criterion. 
Counsel asserts that membership in ASTS satisfies this criterion because membership is limited to those who are 
actively engaged in or show a strong academic or research commitment to transplantation. Counsel further 
asserts that prospective members must be sponsored by at least three members, have studied at an ASTS 
approved institution and have at least three publications in the transplantation literature. Finally, an application 
has to be approved by the ASTS membership committee, the ASTS council and by a two-thirds vote of the 
general membership. Although the petitioner has shown that the requisites for membership are rigorous, the 
SRC 04 081 53036 
Page 5 
petitioner has not established that the ASTS is an association that requires outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the discipline. 
Counsel asserts that membership in the Mayo Medical Alumni Association satisfies this criterion because "being 
accepted into the Mayo fellowship in the first place is extraordinary." Although a Mayo fellowship is 
competitive, the petitioner has not established that acceptance into a Mayo fellowship program is an extraordinary 
achievement or that membership in the Mayo Medical Alumni Association satisfies this criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the alien, relating to the 
alien's work in the Jield for which classfiation is sought, which shall include the title, date and author of 
such published material, and any necessary translations. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner indicates that the petitioner did not provide evidence relating to criterion 
number three. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on apanel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same 
or in an alliedfield of specialization to that for which classi3cation is sought. 
No evidence was submitted in relation to criterion number four. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in 
the$eld. 
For criterion number five, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has made important original 
scientific contributions of major sign5ficant in three fields: the MELD score, pancreatic islet cell tradplantation 
and the international liver transplant tumor registry. 
Counsel for the petitioner asserts that "the MELD score work of [the beneficiv] can be considered the most 
important contributibn to the success of liver transplantation. This is evidence [sic] by the fact that he has 
received national and international recognition for his work as seen in the following [lo] citations." The 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dkc. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Ten citations to a person's work, in and of 
themselves, are not evidence of the originality or significance of an individual's contribution. It is the nature of 
scientific research to build upon the work of other researchers, and citations to other scientists are common in the 
field. While large numbers of citations by one's peers may reflect the communities' reaction to the research as 
original and of major significance, ten citations are not sufficient evidence of the major impact this work has had 
on the field. 
Counsel further asserts that the beneficiary made an original scientific contribution of major significance in his 
field because he was involved in the maintenance of a unique international liver transplant tumor registry. 
the founder and manager of the tumor regis-as supporting 
evidence. rote: "[the beneficiary] is involved in the maintenance of the International Liver 
database involving 57 transplant centers in 10 countries across four 
continents. This is the only registry of its kind in the world. currently the registry manages data on 1244 
The petitioner submitted seven testimonials~~ur~ical Director of Transplantation at Baylor All 
Saints Medical Center, wrote that the beneficiary has made a "significant contribution to our understanding of the 
SRC 04 081 53036 
Page 6 
MELD scoring system for liver allocation." Dr. Gregory Gores, Medical Director of Liver Transplantation at 
Mayo Clinic, wrote that the beneficiary's MELD score data was unique. Dr. Asher Hirshberg, Director of 
Vascular Surgery and Medical Director of the Noninvasive Vascular Laboratory at the Ben Taub General 
Hospital, wrote, "[the beneficiary] made a major contribution to the field of liver transplantation by being among 
the first researchers to validate the new MELD scoring system." Dr. Camillo Ricordi Chief of the Division of 
Cellular Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, wrote: 
The Baylor Regional Transplant Institute . . . is developing an islet cell transplant program based 
on their existing infrastructure as one of the busiest transplant centers in the United States. [The 
beneficiary] is one of the very few medical professionals who have outstanding clinical skills as 
a transplant surgeon, combined with a basic research background, and the leadership capability 
to run such a program in a busy university hospital. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has made an original contribution of major significance 
with his work validating the MELD scoring system, or in pancreatic islet cell transplantation. The evidence fails 
to demonstrate how the beneficiary has made an original contribution of major significance by virtue of his 
involvement in the maintenance of the International Liver Transplant Tumor Registry. While the work may be 
important to the field, the petitioner failed to describe what maintenance of the registry entails and why this is an 
original contribution of major significance. 
In review, the evidence fails to show that beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional journals, or other major 
media. 
The petitioner established that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion, but it is just one criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's employment at Baylor has been critical and 
essential, in part, because the beneficiary was the principal investigator for 12 research projects and because he 
possesses the expertise necessary in the management of patient care for the success of the petitioner's islet cell 
program. 
The regulation clearly requires evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner states that the beneficiary 
has played a critical role at Baylor's islet cell laboratory; therefore, to qualify, it must establish that the islet cell 
laboratory is a distinguished department in its own right. The petitioner failed to establish that Baylor's islet cell 
laboratory possesses a distinguished reputation in its own right. 
The petitioner further asserts that the beneficiary played a critical role at Mayo Clinic because he conducted 
research, published the results of his research on the impact of the MELD score on survival after transplantation. 
While the beneficiary has published his findings relative to the MELD score, the record does not show that his 
research is considered of "major significance" in the field. According to the evidence submitted, the MELD score 
was implemented nationwide in 2002. In the absence of corroborating evidence in the form of mass media, the 
evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary can be credited for playing a key role in the nationwide 
acceptance of the MELD system. 
SRC 04 081 53036 
Page 7 
The beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other 
remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
For criterion number eight, counsel asserts that the proffered salary of $170,000 "exceeds [the] average salary for 
transplant surgeons in Texas or anywhere else in the United States." 
As corroborating evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from the petitioning organization's vice president, 
which stated, "it is my experience that this salary far exceeds the average salary for a surgeon." The petitioner 
also submitted a printout from the Department of Labor's OES-SOC Wage Library evidencing the prevailing 
wage in several states and a printout from the National Institutes of Health, which states that the annual median 
income for surgeons is approximately $145,600 annually." 
The AAO has consistently determined that this criterion must be indicative of national or international acclaim; 
hence, the petitioner should have submitted wage survey information for all transplant surgeons on a nationwide 
basis. To evaluate whether the salary is high, AAO needs to compare it to the median and highest wages offered 
nationwide to transplant surgeons. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. 
Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability, the statute 
requires evidence of "sustained national or international acclaim" and evidence that the alien's achievements have 
been recognized in the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." The petitioner has not established 
that the beneficiary's abilities have been so recognized. In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.