dismissed O-1A Case: Ophthalmology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25939386 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 23, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, an international management consulting firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, an 
ophthalmology specialist, as an individual of extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
classification is 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)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Beneficiary had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability: 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. 
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 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 
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 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner did not indicate or establish the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(])-(8). The Director determined the 
Beneficiary fulfilled only two criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(4) and scholarly 
articles under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(B)(iii)(6). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the Beneficiary 
satisfies two additional criteria. After reviewing all of the submitted evidence, the record does not 
reflect the Beneficiary meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
Analysis under this criterion focuses on whether the beneficiary's original work constitutes major, 
significant contributions to the field. 1 For instance, published research that has provoked widespread 
commentary on its importance from others in the field, and documentation that it has been highly cited 
relative to other work in that field, may be probative of the significance of the beneficiary's 
contributions to the field of endeavor. 2 Similarly, evidence that the beneficiary developed a patented 
technology that has attracted significant attention or commercialization may establish the significance 
of the beneficiary's original contribution to the field. 3 
The Petitioner argues that submitted recommendation letters demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for this criterion and specifically cites to a letter from Dr. H-E-W-, who claimed that "one of [the 
Beneficia 's most si nificant research ro·ects was her paper, I I 
___________________ which had a significant impact in my clinical 
care," and "I can confirm that this work has received much commentary and widespread discussion 
and it has been implemented by many of my own colleagues including myself" Although the letter 
makes broad assertions, Dr. H-E-W- did not provide specific information supporting her claims. 4 For 
1 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2)(appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
4 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, M.4(C)(2)(appendix) (instructing that detailed letters from experts in the field 
explaining the nature and significance of the beneficiary's contribution(s) may also provide valuable context for evaluating 
2 
instance, the letter does not further explain the level of "much commentary and widespread discussion" 
to show the Beneficiary's paper and research is considered in the field to be at a level of major 
significance. 5 While Dr. H-E-W- indicated that she, as well as her own colleagues, implemented the 
Beneficiary's work, the letter does not elaborate and show the impact of the Beneficiary's work on the 
overall field rather than limited to Dr. H-E-W- and her colleagues. 
Likewise, the record contains other recommendation letters that discuss the Petitioner's research and 
findings and indicate their publication in journals, highlighting their rankings. 6 However, the letters 
do not expand upon how the Beneficiary's work has significantly impacted or influenced the field in 
a major way. In the absence of specific information detailing the impact or influence of the Petitioner's 
research, the letters do not demonstrate that the work has risen to a level of major significance in the 
field. Moreover, a publication that bears a high ranking or impact factor reflects the publication's 
overall citation rate; it does not show an author's influence or the impact of research in the field or 
that every article published in a "prestigious" journal automatically indicates a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that "[t]he Service does acknowledge and the record contains evidence 
that the work in which the beneficiary participated, and subsequently published, has been cited 
multiple times." Although some of the recommendation letters reference the authors and colleagues 
implementing the Beneficiary's research in their own work, the letters do not reflect that the 
Beneficiary "has been cited multiple times." Moreover, the record does not contain other 
documentation identifying or specifying the number of citations to the Beneficiary's individual papers. 
The Petitioner, for instance, did not provide independent citatory evidence, including evidence 
establishing the major significance of such citation data. 7 
Accordingly, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary has been employed 
in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments having distinguished reputations. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The USCIS Policy Manual provides the following further guidance: 8 
the claimed original contributions of major significance, pa1iicularly when the record includes documentation 
corroborating the claimed significance). 
5 See also, e.g., letter from Dr. W-W-, who claimed that the Beneficiary "produced truly groundbreaking research that has 
also impacted my own work" and "[t]his work has unquestionably had wide-reaching international influence" but does not 
further explain these claims to show original contributions of major significance. 
6 See, e.g., letters from Dr. M-A-B- and Dr. D-S-F-. 
7 See 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, M.4(C)(2)(appendix) (providing an example of documentation that the beneficiary's 
original work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field). 
8 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, M.4(C)(2)(appendix) (listing the following examples of critical or essential positions: 
senior faculty or senior research position for a distinguished academic department or program; senior research position for 
a distinguished nonacademic institution or company; principal or named investigator for a department, institution, or 
3 
To show a critical role, the evidence should establish that the beneficiary has 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the organization or 
establishment's activities. To show an essential role, the evidence should establish that 
the beneficiary's role is (or was) integral to the entity. A leadership role in an 
organization often qualifies as critical or essential. 
For a supporting role to be considered critical or essential, USCIS considers other 
factors, such as whether the beneficiary's performance in the role is ( or was) integral 
to important to the organization or establishment's goals or activities, especially in 
relation to others in similar positions within the organization. 
It is not the title of the beneficiary's role, but rather the beneficiary's duties and 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is ( or was) critical or essential. 
Detailed letters from persons with personal knowledge of the significance of the 
beneficiary's role can be particularly helpful in analyzing this criterion. The 
organization need not have directly employed the beneficiary. 
The Petitioner argues the Beneficiary's eligibility based on her role with the 
I at !University and references an initial letter from Dr. B-K --S-, who stated: 
[The Beneficiary] held various responsibilities in research, teaching, and 
administration of the institution. In research, she performed independent research 
around vision impairment and cognitive decline, access to healthcare for those with 
sensory impairment, glaucoma, cornea, public health, ophthalmology, and eyecare­
related health services research using large national databases as well as institutional 
data. Her work focused on improving access to, quality of and equity in opththalmic 
care. The research utilized complex quantitative and qualitative methods. [The 
Beneficiary's] research has been published in multiple renowned peer-viewed 
international journals and presented at various national meetings. In the teaching 
realm, as a Postdoctoral Fellow atl !University School of Medicine, [the 
Beneficiary] conducted and presented in educational sessions to other postdoctoral 
fellows that aided in developing their own research skills and helped them publish in 
high impact peer-reviewed journals. She additionally trained medical students atl I I lwho complete their own research electives at the I I in basic research 
methods, study conduct, statistical skills, and scientific writing. Administratively, [the 
Beneficiary] organized and managed multiple meetings within the center which 
included scientific educational sessions for faculty, fellows, medical and master's 
students, and research staff. This has made a tremendous impact on the quality of 
research from our group. 
business that received a merit-based government award, such as an academic research or Small Business Innovation 
Research grant; member of a key committee within a distinguished organization; founder or co-founder of, or contributor 
of intellectual property to, a startup business that has a distinguished reputation; and critical or essential supporting role 
for a distinguished organization or a distinguished division of an institution or company, as explained in detail by the 
director or a principal investigator of the relevant organization or division). 
4 
Although Dr. B-K-S- described the Beneficiary's various responsibilities, the letter does not contain 
specific information explaining how the Beneficiary contributed in a way that was of significant 
importance to the activities or that the Beneficiary was integral to the institute. The letter, for 
example, did not elaborate and demonstrate how the Petitioner's performance of conducting 
independent research, training di cal students, or organizing meetings rose to the level of a critical 
or essential capacity within Furthermore, the letter did not contain corroborating information to 
support the claim of the Beneficiary making "a tremendous impact." 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a supplemental letter 
from Dr. B-K-S- who indicated the Beneficiary "was an integral and critical part of my team at the 
I latl !University" and "[h]]er ability 
to manage and work with large amounts of data, analyze it, identify important findings, and draft 
manuscripts was by far beyond the skills of any of her 
colleagues." 
Here, letter does not claim the 
Beneficiary's role for instead, the letter references an organization or establishment not 
claimed by the Petitioner. In addition, neither the letter nor the Petitioner explained the relationship 
or hierarchy, if any, between and I let alone how the Beneficiary's role with I I also 
reflected a critical or essential role forc=J Moreover, although the first letter provided information 
establishing the distinguished reputation of the supplemental letter contains no information 
relating to the reputation of 
The Petitioner also argues the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on her postdoctoral 
fellow position with the I I at the University ofl I and references an 
initial letter from Dr. J-R-E-, who indicated: 
... [The Beneficiary] has played an instrumental role in planning a large longitudinal 
population-based study called thel I I which will join a growing network of harmonized panel studies of aging 
in 45 countries modeled on the U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) .... [The 
Beneficiary] is playing a vital role in developing this infrastructure and survey design 
in collaboration with multiple stake holders both in the US and in She is 
currently engaged in the creation of a survey instrument by invoking key co­
investigators from other top universities such as Johns Hopkins, University of Southern 
California and University of California, Berkeley. 
According to Dr. J-R-E-'s letter, the Beneficiary is in the process of developing a survey for ___ 
However, the letter does not contain detailed information explaining how the Beneficiary's 
performance has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to or that the Beneficiary 
has been integral to it. Although the letter indicates the Beneficiary as being "instrumental" and 
"vital," Dr. J-R-E- does not elaborate and explain his claims to show the Beneficiary's employment in 
a critical or essential capacity. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a supplemental letter from Dr. J-R-E- who 
stated that the Beneficiary "is the only postdoc playing a critical role in this project," and "[ss ]he has 
single-handedly developed the survey instrument which we plan to pilot later this year." The letter, 
however, does not explain the significance of the Beneficiary being the only postdoctoral fellow 
working on the project or the relevance of her single-handedly developing the survey that has yet to 
5 
be administered. Here, the letter does not contain sufficient information reflecting that the 
Beneficiary's contributions tol I has resulted in significant importance tol I activities. 9 
Finally, the Petitioner references a letter from Dr. J-M-L-, a partner for the Petitioner. However, the 
record does not show that the Petitioner has ever employed the Beneficiary, let alone in a critical or 
essential capacity. Instead, Dr. J-M-L- discusses the Beneficiary's employment in futuristic terms, 
such as the Beneficiary "will hold a critical and essential role," "will work to address specific 
challenges in the field of ophthalmology," and "will be asked to provide support." The regulation 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has been employed" rather than 
evidence that the Beneficiary will be employed; therefore, the Petitioner did not establish that its 
intended employment of the Beneficiary qualifies for this criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary meets at least three categories of evidence. As 
such, we 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 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii). 10 
Accordingly, we reserve this issue. 11 Consequently, the Petitioner has not established 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. 
9 Similarly, the Petitioner also argues that it submitted letters from Dr. A-K-B- and Dr. A-N- relating to the Beneficiary's 
employment with While the letters briefly indicate that Beneficiary's participation in the survey study creation, they 
do not provide specific information detailing how the Beneficiary's position as a postdoctoral fellow caused her perfonning 
in a critical or essential capacity for 
10 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
11 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-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). 
6