dismissed O-1A Case: Podiatric Medicine

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass, Rm. A3042,425 I Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20536 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 03 239 5 1646 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
2 5 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: fi 
PETITION: Petition for a Noniwnigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. A11 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
,!I J~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
, I 
il 
LIN 03 239 51646 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION. The nonirnmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service Center, and is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a major podiatric medicine and surgical center. The beneficiary is a doctor of podiatric 
medicine. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonirnmigrant, under section 
lOl(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 lOl(a)(15)(o)(i), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the medical sciences. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the 
United States for a period of three years as a podiatric physician, surgeon, instructor, and researcher. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has sustained 
recognition as being one of a small percentage at the very top of the field of medical sciences. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner submits a brief arguing that the record shows that the beneficiary is an alien 
with extraordinary ability in his field. 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional documentation and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and brief. 
Section lOl(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 raised by the director 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. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field 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 the fields 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 forms 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; 
LIN 03 239 5 1646 
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 citizen of Canada. The record reflects that he received his medical degree in 
1997 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He completed a three-year surgical residency at the Northlake Regional 
Medical Center in Tucker, Georgia. He completed the "Hands-on External Fixation Workshop" in Tucker, 
Georgia in September 1997, the "Holmium Laser Course" in Atlanta, Georgia in June 1998, the "AO/ASIF 
Techniques of Stable Fixation and Foot and Ankle Surgery" training in Colorado Springs, Colorado in October 
1998, the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons "Arthroscopy Course" in Chicago, Illinois in June 1999, 
and the "Advanced Ilizarov Method Course" in Cancun, Mexico in October 1999. 
The record reflects that the beneficiary was last admitted to the United States on January 5, 2003 as an H-lB1 
nonimmigrant . 
After reviewing the evidence submitted in support of the petition, the director found the beneficiary ineligible for 
0-1 classification based on a finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets the 
requirements of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 214.2(0)(3), supra. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director erred in weighing the evidence. 
First, there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award equivalent 
to that listed at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). Moreover, the record does not persuasively demonstrate that the 
beneficiary has met at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary satisfies criterion number one because he has received the following 
awards: 
The Rapoport Award. 
LIN 03 239 51646 
Page 4 
The David LeBovith Award. 
Admission to the Stirling -Hartford Honorary Anatomical Society. 
Who's Who in American Universities and Colleges. 
Selection for residency program at Northlake Regional Medical Center. 
This criterion requires nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
Counsel indicates that the "Rapoport Award" is given to a student who is "dedicated to the preservation of human 
dignity" and that the David LeBovith Award is given to the student "who has demonstrated the highest degree of 
manual dexterity in the fabrication of accommodative foot orthoses as well as the greatest understanding of the 
materials used in their construction." These awards were based on the beneficiary's activities as a student and 
thus do not demonstrate they were awarded in his field of endeavor in medical science. Further, given that the 
awards were given by the beneficiary's school, there is no indication that either award is nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Similarly, we do not find that the beneficiary's selection in the Stirling-Hartford Anatomical Society and Who's 
Who in American Universities and Colleges meets the requirements of this criterion as the beneficiary was 
selected based upon his work as a student, not in the field of medical science. 
Counsel further argues that because of the beneficiary's "scholarly excellence" he was selected for the "most 
prestigious extended residency program for pediatric physicians in the U.S." Being chosen as a resident at 
Northlake Regional Medical Center is not a national or international prize or award. 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, awards for 
academic work, scholarships and fellowships cannot be considered awards in the field of endeavor. Moreover, 
only students compete for such awards. As the petitioner did not compete with nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in the field, the awards cannot be considered evidence of the beneficiary's national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that these were awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
Selection for a competitive slot at an esteemed institution is not a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. The beneficiary was competing with fellow students 
for these slots. 
The beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
Documentation of the alienh membership in associations in the field for which class$cation is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields. 
For criterion number two, counsel notes the beneficiary's membership in the American Podiatric Medical 
Association, the Georgia and Michigan Podiatric Medical Associations, and the American College of Foot and 
Ankle Surgeons but acknowledges that membership in these societies "is not limited to outstanding individuals." 
Counsel then argues, however, "while all podiatrists have to be licensed by the state of their practice, a much 
smaller number are board certified," like the beneficiary. 
LIN 03 239 51646 
Page 5 
Counsel states that the beneficiary is a faculty member of the Podiatry Institute and is the "only faculty member 
located in Michigan" and argues that, "selection to the faculty is itself indicative of outstanding and extraordinary 
ability, and membership on the faculty is so limited." 
We are not persuaded by counsel's arguments. The criterion requires the beneficiary to be a member of an 
association which requires outstanding achievements of its members. Neither board certification nor being a 
faculty member of The Podiatry Institute is tantamount to membership in an association that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. 
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 classzjkation is sought, which shall include the title, date and author of such 
published material, and any necessary translations. 
The director determined that no published material about the alien had been submitted in support of the petition; 
however, evidence of infrequent citations in the Thomson Scientific citation index database of scientific journals 
was submitted in lieu of published material. The director considered evidence of citations but determined that the 
criterion had not been met. The AAO has consistently held that having one's work cited is not equivalent to 
having articles written about the alien and his work in major media or trade publications as envisioned in the 
statute and regulations. Citations are not about the alien or his work, rather, they are references to his work. The 
beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
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 alliedfield of specialization to that for which classification is sought. 
Counsel argues the beneficiary's "selection for membership in The Podiatry Institute and his extensive lecturing 
opportunities within that organization" meet the requirements of this criterion. Counsel further argues that the 
director, in his decision, added higher evidentiary requirements by requiring a showing that the beneficiary 
received national or international acclaim through his participation. 
While we may not agree with the exact wording in the director's decision, we do not read the director's decision 
as heightening requirements for this criterion. A more rational interpretation of the director's decision is that the 
petitioner submitted documentation that related to or addressed this criterion, but that the evidence itself did not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim. A petitioner cannot establish eligibility for this classification 
merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to the criterion. In determining whether a petitioner meets a 
specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it establishes that the petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Upon review, we find the record does not reflect that the beneficiary has participated on a panel as the judge of 
the work of others. Although we do not dispute that he participated on panels, the evidence reflects that the 
beneficiary was a lecturer and presented professional paper presentations. The beneficiary's participation as a 
speaker is not tantamount to his participation as a judge of the work of others. 
Evidence of the alien's original scienti$c, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
For criterion number five, counsel asserts that the beneficiary has made "notable scientific accomplishments in 
scholarship, publication and lecturing." Counsel refers to the letters contained in the record highlighting the 
beneficiary's selection for and completion of his residency program and the fact that scholarly publications in the 
beneficiary's field are a "rarity," and argues that the petitioner does not have to establish that the beneficiary has 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim for this individual criterion. 
LIN 03 239 5 1646 
Page 6 
While the record does reflect that the beneficiary has published results of his work, the record does not show that 
his research is considered of "major significance" in the field. By definition, all professional research must be 
original and significant in order to warrant publication in a professional journal. The record does not show that 
the beneficiary's research is of major significance in relation to other similar work being performed, regardless of 
the number of articles that are published in his field. The infrequent citation rate is not convincing evidence that 
the beneficiary's work is original of major significance. 
The petitioner has also failed to establish that the beneficiary has made an original contribution of major 
significance with his work at the Holland Foot and Ankle Center. While the work he performs may be important 
to the individual patient, the petitioner failed to establish how the beneficiary's work at the center is an original 
contribution of major significance. 
As it relates to the beneficiary's experience as a lecturer, the petitioner fails to demonstrate how his lectures are an 
original contribution or of a major significance. The evidence in the record reflects the beneficiary lectures on 
"important discoveries and innovations" but there is no evidence that these "discoveries and innovations" are 
those of the beneficiary. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary's work is original and of major significance in relation to 
other similar work being performed. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or other major media. 
For this criterion, counsel notes that the beneficiary has published two articles. To refute Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' (CIS) position that the publication of scholarly articles is not automatic evidence of 
sustained acclaim, counsel argues that because podiatry "is not a field in which individual podiatrists routinely 
publish", the beneficiary's two publications should be viewed as a "significant achievement" and "not a routine 
institutional practice in the area of pediatric medicine." 
We are not persuaded by counsel's argument. The mere fact that the beneficiary's work has been chosen for 
publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. Publication alone may 
serve as evidence of originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is important or 
influential if there is little evidence that other researchers have relied upon the petitioner's findings. Frequent 
citation by independent researchers would demonstrate more widespread interest in, and reliance on, the 
petitioner's work. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that that 
work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater research community, then it is reasonable to question how 
widely that alien's work is viewed as being nationally or internationally acclaimed. In the present case, the 
petitioner provides no evidence showing that his work has been heavily cited. While the petitioner has clearly 
co-authored some published articles, the weight of this evidence is diminished by the lack of evidence showing 
that these articles have influenced his field and does not distinguish him from others in his field. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
For criterion number seven, the counsel asserts that the director erred by requiring "monumental documentation" 
of the beneficiary's critical or essential role for the petitioner. Counsel further asserts that the evidence contained 
in the record adequately demonstrates that the beneficiary has been and will continue to play a critical or essential 
role for the petitioner and for The Podiatry Institute. 
LIN 03 239 5 1646 
Page 7 
The record contains a letter fro President of the petitioning center, which indicates that the 
beneficiary "is a key member has the responsibility for 24-hour out-patient and in- 
patient care of our pediatric patients."- While we do not dispute the-reputation of the Holland Foot and Ankle 
Center, and that employment with this center is evidence of a degree of recognition, staff positions such as that 
held by the beneficiary are not considered employment in a "critical or essential capacity" as would be a director 
or president. 
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. 
The Form 1-129 petition indicates that the beneficiary will earn an annual salary of $155,000 per year. The 
petitioner provided a copy of an article referring to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' 2001 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey of Podiatrists that indicates that the average 
income of a podiatrist is approximately $94,000 per year. As the salary indicated by the survey provides only 
an average, it does not indicate what the highest salaries are in the beneficiary's field. Although we do not 
dispute that the beneficiary's proposed wage is higher than the average salary, we cannot determine that the 
salary is high compared to other similarly qualified podiatrists and that the salary is therefore indicative of 
someone at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Moreover, the petitioner has failed to provide a contract or other reliable evidence, as required by the regulation. 
See 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(2)(ii). Without evidence to support that the petitioner's claim of the beneficiary's 
proffered salary is legitimate, the petitioner has not met 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. 
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 
136 1. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.