dismissed EB-1A Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 25, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dentist and researcher in the field of dentistry, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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 initially approved the petition. Subsequently, the 
Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval, advising the Petitioner that he did 
not satisfy the initial evidence requirement of presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a 
major, internationally recognized award, or documentation that met at least three of the ten criteria 
listed under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director further found that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he would continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. After reviewing 
the Petitioner's NOIR response, the Director revoked the approval of the petition, finding that it had 
been approved in error. 
In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in finding he did not meet the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner further states that the evidence 
demonstrates his standing as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 , 
Matter of G-M-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he 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 the individual's 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). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence ofrecord 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
2 
Matter of G-M-
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself: the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordina m .=--~=~~=~=~~~~==..... 
the field of dentistry. He holds a Doctor of Dentistry from the m 
I I Russia (2008). Since 2010 he has been employed as a dentist at m 
I I 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Upon a review of all the documents in the record, we conclude that the Director properly revoked the 
approval of the petition, because the record does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies his initial 
evidence requirement. Specifically, he has not presented evidence of his one-time achievement that 
is a major, internationally recognized award, or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten 
criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 1 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner provided award certificates regarding the following awards, all of which the he won 
jointly with others including his father, I I and sister I I I I which he highlights on appeal 2: 
1) Gold Medal at the,__ _______________________ ___, 
1 12006) ...-----------------. 
2) Gold Medal at the for Technological 
Innovation "--~-...J..-'........,.,_,__, ________________________ ---. 
3) Gold Medal at t s ,------'------------------,n----,-------------' 
from the ----,;::=============:::::::::-1.__1-=2::.!:0~0~7.L_ _____ ---, 
4) Gold Medal at the.___ _______________________ __. 
{ 12008) 
1 The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not establish, that he has received a one-time achievement. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We will discuss the evidence concerning the three criteria that he claims to meet. 
2 The Petitioner also provided a participation certificate regarding the 2012 I , I 
I I organized by the I I and the I I 
However, he has not established how a paiticipation certification equates to the receipt of a lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
3 
Matter of G-M-
5) Gold Medal at the from the I.__ ____ ____, 
Dl 12008) 
6) Gold Medal at th~ id I ;:=..20:a....a0=8)..___ _____ ~ 
7) Gold Prize at thel..__ ____________ ...,.., from the~I --------~ 
Association ~ 12008) 
8) Gold Medal and S ecial Prize at the Fifth .__ _______________ ___. 
2009 
9) Gold Medal at the.=========================: 
Projects from the I 
I 1LJ~~-===::!.1~20~10~) __ ~ 
10)1 I Prize 2014 from 1,.___-~ld..---------,...-12-01-4) _____ _____. .___ ____ ___. 
First, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide properly certified translations for the 
foreign-language award certificates. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a 
full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from 
the foreign language into English. Id. In the NOIR, the Director noted that the Petitioner submitted 
English language translations accompanied by certifications in which the translator does not certify 
his/her translations "as complete." 
Within his response to the NOIR, the Petitioner provided additional translation certifications from a 
different translator, which postdate the original translations of the Russian language award certificates. 
In addition, the Petitioner's response did not address the deficiencies in the translation certifications 
for the French language certificates from thel f for 
Technological Innovation and thel I 
Further althou h not addressed b the Director we note that in the translation certifications 
.-----....__-----------~~--~----------' in I l and the 
.__ _____________ ____,in .__ __ the translator did not identify the foreign language 
of the certificates, and did not certify he/she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. Because those translations do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), we agree with the 
Director that they have diminished probative value. 
In addition, the Director determined that the evidence the Petitioner provided regarding the above­
referenced awards did not meet the regulatory criterion because it did not establish that the awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 3 On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that the evidence he provided regarding these awards does in fact meet the regulatory 
requirements. 4 With regard to the aforementioned awards, we find that the Petitioner did not submit 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual ( AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD 11-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCTS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf 
4 We note that although the Petitioner further asserts on appeal that "[ a ]dditional material is enclosed with regard to the 
awarding organizations and the events at which [the Petitioner] received his awards," the record does not contain this 
documentation. 
4 
Matter of G-M-
evidence demonstrating their national or international recognition in the field of reinforced dentistry 
or in the general area of dentistry. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation about many of the above exhibitions. trade fairs, and contests 
at which he received awards. Information from www ~ !describes the[ I 
.__ ______________ _.as "Germany's only inventor fair with a truly global image." 
It indicates that the 2015 event saw a jury, comprised of "25 independent members from the fields of 
economics, research, development, medicine and technology," assess more than 700 inventions and 
award 65 gold medals, 86 silver medals, and 55 bronze medals. Documentation from I I 
I I about the I lfor Technological Innovation award 
ceremony indicates that "an international jury of professionals rewards the best innovations" and that 
"[ w] e guarantee the winners that our prizes and medals are a very important gauge of quality to help 
them in the launch of their invention." Information from wwwl kom indicates the 
.__ ____________________ ~ inD is an annu,al fair that provides a 
platform for inventors to "publicize their inventions for farther operations of their patent," "market 
their own inventions by selling them at stands," and "receive an award." The Petitioner also provided 
~release from www.dualo.org identifying that entity as an award-winner at the 20141 I 
L__Jevent. 
Promotional materials from wwwc=].com state that the.__ _______________ __. 
□'highlighted the inventions, innovations and creativity of youths" and included "competitions for 
best inventions to be judged by a highly competent panel" and "valuable prizes for top ilventions." A 
press release from www.ameinfo.com states that the telecommunications company co-hosted the 
2015 .__ __ r======,---------------! and notes the fair is "part of the International 
Exhibition ot1 I' An additional press release from www.news.kuwaittimes.net indicates the 
event had "[m]ore than 160 inventors from 30 countries." It also mentions that "[i]n the past, we were 
paying for the inventors to participate, and since the last two years, the inventors are paying to 
participate." Documentation from thel I inl I indicates that 
the exhibition annually has more than 700 exhibitors from 45 countries exhibiting 1,000 inventions. 
The promotional materials show that the event awards more than 50 prizes based upon the selections 
of "a jury comprised of 82 specialists" with a goal to help the commercial launching of the winning 
inventions. 
The Petitioner provided promotional materials from wwwc=brg that describe the 2015._I __ _. 
I I as "a 4-day event where inventors and researchers showcase their new 
ideas and products to manufacturers, investors, distributors, licensing firms, and the general public," 
and note that the event had "723 inventions from 34 countries. " Information from 
www.newtime.ayumel.ru about the 2013 I I I I inl I indicates it is the official event of thel I 
Associations, that it had 580 inventions, and presented "527 medals (gold, silver, bronze ones), 60 
Diplomas of Honor and more than 60 prizes and other awards." Finally, information from 
5 
Matter of G-M-
www.expo2010.formika.ru indicates that the six-month event "will be attended by more than 200 
official participants ( countries and international organizations), including Russia. 5 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner has not established that the above-referenced awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized. The documentation submitted does not demonstrate the 
recognition that any of those awards received in the field beyond those awarding entities. For example, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his wins attracted the level of media attention that might indicate the 
award's national or international recognition. Moreover, although the websites of many of the 
awarding organizations provide the number of awardees or prize recipients, the Petitioner has not 
submitted information about the individuals who participated in the event, including their caliber and 
skill level, which might reveal the prestige and recognition of the competition. See USCIS Policy 
Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 6 (providing that for this criterion we should consider "[t]he 
number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors.") Without additional 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the field recognizes the aforementioned awards at a 
national or international level as awards for excellence. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation that satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. He 
must demonstrate that his contributions are original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related in nature. The contributions must have already been realized, rather than being 
prospective possibilities. He must also establish that the contributions rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and thus has meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor 
Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 
2003). "Contributions of major significance" connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. For example, a petitioner may show that the 
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 contends that he is the co-author of "71 patents in Russia, which in itself attests to the 
originality of his scientific contributions to the field of dentistry" and he asserts that the submitted 
letters ofrecommendation "clearly establishes the originality of [the Petitioner's] scientific research, 
and the major significan[ce] it has to the field of dentistry .... " As evidence reflecting the originality 
of his work, the Petitioner provided corroborating documentary evidence that he is the co-owner of 
approximately 70 Russian patents in the field of dentistry. The patents list the Petitioner's father as 
the first inventor, and many also list his sisterl las a co-inventor. 6 
5 The record does not include information regarding the 2014~--------------~Prize in 
I I 
6 We note that the Petitione~'s grant of the patents began in 2002 when, according to his CV, he was completing his 
undergraduate degree at the ! I University of Medicine and Dentistry, so it is unclear how he should be 
credited with those contributions to the technique for which the patents were received. 
6 
Matter of G-M-
First, as noted by the Director, the patents were accompanied by certified translations that did not 
satisfy the requirements of the regulations because they did not certify that were complete translations. 
Within his response to the NOIR, the Petitioner provided additional translation certifications from a 
different translator that postdate the original translations of the Russian language patents. Therefore, 
we agree with the Director that the translations have diminished probative value. Further, a patent 
primarily recognizes the originality of the idea, but it does not by itself demonstrate a contribution of 
major significance in the field. Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a 
case-by-case basis. In the case here, the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
demonstrating his original research pertaining to reinforced dentistry. However, the submitted letters 
of recommendation did not establish that his research has been of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from an associate professor in physics and 
astronomy at the University of indicating that she met the Petitioner in 2011 
and collaborated with him on research involvinc>-__________ resulting in the publication 
of three papers. 7 She states that the Petitioner helped develop a unique technology for tooth repair 
usmg.__ ________ ~ which she claims have a lower incidence I I She also credits 
him with participating in developing the.__ ___________________ of 
I 
that she claims reduces the number of critical pores between the layers of the 
.__ ______ ___,_ She claims that many of her colleagues "throughout the world are also familiar 
with [the Petitioner's] significant contributions to the I I dentistry field." 
.__ __________ ~............, the Petitioner's father, provided two letters, in which he indicates 
that he has 35 years of research and clinical experience in the field of dentistry. He asserts that he and 
the Petitioner jointly have been granted 71 patents in the field of dentistry, have won the above­
referenced gold medals at international exhibitions, and have authored 43 publications in the field of 
I I dentistry. He describes the Petitioner's research as involving "the elimination of 
complications after dental treatment and prosthetics." He states that he and the Petitioner developed 
and patented the I I technique and have "offered a mechanically activated I I 
I I which he claims "reduces complications and extends the functional operation of composite 
restoration." 
Professor! klescribes as "unique" the Petitioner's doctoral thesis pertaining to the use 
of reinforced.__ _______ _.:, although he does not indicate how he first became aware of the 
Petitioner's research findings in the field ofl !dentistry. He indicates that "[i]mplementation 
of [the Petitioner's] innovations to al[l]-around practices shall prevent and reduce the number of 
complications in dental practice, and increase the period of teeth functioning." However, as stated 
previously, contributions must have already been realized, rather than being prospective possibilities. 
'----------- indicates that he was present when the Petitioner defended his doctoral thesis 
and is, therefore, familiar with the Petitioner's research involving '.__ ___________ ~ 
" He states that the Petitioner's research confirmed "the advantage of 
He also credits the Petitioner with 
7 Although._l ---~__,_,k letter indicates that she attached her CV for reference, the record does not contain a copy of 
that document. 
7 
Matter of G-M-
co-inventing! I which he states uses "a special tool" for.__ ____________ ~ 
.__ __ ~I He indicates that clinical trials have shown that both of those techniques reduce the risk of 
complications and increase the lifespan of composite restoration materials. He claims that the 
Petitioner's "innovative developments are of great practical value." 
Professor indicates that the Petitioner is the co-author of an "innovative .------=============='-------------, 'F===----------------------~ using'.__ __________ ___, 
....... _ ... t, He states that the results of clinical studies showed the Petitioner's technique "ensures 
durability of composites." 
While the letters praise the Petitioner for his original research contributions, they do not demonstrate 
their major significance to the field. The letters recount the Petitioner's research and findings, and 
mention their publication in journals, and presentation at international trade shows and exhibitions. 
Publications and presentations are not sufficient under this criterion absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. Although the authors detail the novelty of the Petitioner's research, they do not show 
why it has been considered of such importance and how its impact on the field rises to the level 
required by this criterion. Here, the record does not include documentary evidence showing the 
widespread implementation of the Petitioner's work, that it has been seminal, or that it otherwise 
equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. Letters that specifically articulate 
how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent 
work add value. 8 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add 
value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 9 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. 
Att): Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. We disagree and find that the 
record supports the Petitioner's claim that he meets this criterion. The Petitioner documented his co­
authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications, such as the Institute of 
Dentistry's journal Clinical Dentistry. For this reason, the Petitioner has submitted documentation 
that satisfies this criterion. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
8 
Matter of G-M-
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner is not eligible because he 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that 
meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we need not 
fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude that it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his accomplishments is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) 
of the Act, we need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability" under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) and will not address the Director's separate finding with respect 
to that issue. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In 
visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of G-M-, ID# 4385645 (AAO Oct. 25, 2019) 
9