dismissed EB-1A Case: Dentistry

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranw 
invasion of personal privacy 
PrnLIC COPY 
FILE: 
U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
*Am Office: CALlFORNlA SERVICE CENTER Date: ,jut( 1 6 200: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
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. 
I# 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
lmmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(I )(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. Ej 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability as a dentist. The record 
shows that at the time of filing, the petitioner was employed as a dentist at the Dental Clinic of Alliance Medical 
Center (Alliance). The record indicates that Alliance is a non-profit organization serving the healthcare needs of 
impoverished migrant farm workers and their families in Healdsburg, California. The petitioner initially 
submitted supporting documents including his resume, diploma, California dental license and 15 support letters. 
The director determined that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that the petitioner had garnered the 
requisite sustained national or international acclaim in dentistry and that the record did not establish that his 
entry into the United States would substantially benefit the country as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A)(iii). On appeal, counsel submits a brief and materials concerning oral health 
and dental care in the United States. Counsel's claims and the additional evidence submitted on appeal do not 
overcome the substantive reasons for denial and we affirm the director's decision. 
Page 3 
We first note that counsel apparently misclassified this case. Although the petitioner's Form 1-140 states that he 
is filing for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability, much of the record addresses the employment- 
based second preference immigrant category in section 203(b)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). Indeed, 
counsel's appellate brief is entirely devoted to inapplicable arguments concerning the employment-based second 
preference classification and the national interest waiver provision of section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) as discussed in Netv York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 
1998). Counsel closes her brief by stating that the "[alppellant should be granted the National Interest Waiver 
as requested." The supporting documents also address these issues rather than the classification sought. Half of 
the record documents the petitioner's education and professional qualifications. The other half consists of 
support letters focusing on the petitioner's bilingual and bicultural skills and how they are essential to the 
operation of the Alliance dental clinic, which serves a predominately Spanish-speaking population that would 
otherwise have no access to dental care. The record establishes that the petitioner has valuable professional, 
bilingual and bi-cultural skills that enable him to provide dental services to Alliance's impoverished patients and 
suggests that there is a shortage of dentists such as the petitioner to treat medically underserved communities 
across the country. However, these issues relate to the requirements of a petition filed under section 203(b)(2) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(2), not the classification sought here: an alien with extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. 6 1153(b)(l)(A). 
We discuss the evidence submitted under the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) applicable to the 
extraordinary ability classification and relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationaltv or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The record contains no evidence of prizes or awards won by the petitioner. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the$eld for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence of his membership in any associations in the field of dentistry. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classiJ$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record contains no published material about the petitioner. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an allied$eld of specification for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted no evidence that he had judged the work of other dentists or oral health professionals. 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major sign$cance in the$eld. 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted 15 recommendation letters, including 14 letters written by his employers and 
colleagues. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, 
they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate 
that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom 
he has worked directly. Moreover, recommendation letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect 
of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Most of the letters in this case praise the petitioner's bilingual and bicultural skills and his dedicated service to 
Alliance's patients. For example, states that he "had the pleasure of working with rn at the Alliance Dental Clinic, in Healdsburg. This city has a large impoverished Hispanic population 
and this clinic is their primary provider for medical and dental treatment. As a bilingual dentist,is 
an asset to the community." 1- who has also worked with the petitioner at Alliance, 
affirms that Bprovides a valuable service to the primarily low income Hispanic patients served by 
this clinic. His ability d communication with staff and patients is an asset to our 
community as a whole." director of the Alliance Dental Clinic ex lains that the clinic 
serves underprivileged his employment at Alliance, has helped to 
improve the oral health status of these families by rovidin culturally sensitive quality dental services to those 
denied access because of socioeconomic barriers." -tresses that the petitioner "provides both the 
essential elements of being bilingual and bi-cultural which are critically important in connecting with our 
patients." 
Former colleagues of the petitioner also praise his professional dental skills and amicable nature. 
the former director of the Alliance Dental Clinic who hired the petitioner in 1999, 
the highest moral and ethical standards who was well like by co-workers and 
describes him as an "excellent clinician. He 
is also a very dedicated and caring doctor." another dentist who works with the petitioner 
at Alliance explains that he to posses an easygoing personality and -- -- 
to be a stabilizing influence in the clinic. . . . Most importantly, [his] patients are receiving a level of care far 
above what is generally expected or seen at a rural health clinic. The restorations that he places are of the 
highest quality exhibiting pride of workmanship, knowledge and skill in all areas of dentistry." 
Although the letters indicate that the petitioner is skilled at providing quality dental care in a culturally sensitive 
manner to impoverished patients, the record does not demonstrate that this skill has resulted in major 
contributions that have been recognized in the fields of dentistry or community dental health care beyond the 
petitioner's immediate colleagues. The record shows that the petitioner is highly valued and well respected by 
his colleagues, but it does not demonstrate that his accomplishments as a dentist have garnered the sustained 
national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Accordingly, 
the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien 3 authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The record contains no evidence of scholarly articles written by the petitioner. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
lhat have a distinguished reputation. 
The record is insufficient to meet this criterion. While many of the letters attest to the important role the 
petitioner holds at the Alliance Dental Clinic. the record contains no independent evidence that the clinic has a 
distinguished reputation. 
(ix} Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signrficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
On page eight of her brief on appeal, counsel claims that the etitioner "has proven substantial remuneration for 
' 
his professional services" and cites a letter of Chief Operating Officer of Alliance, stating that - 
the petitioner is compensated at the rate of $56.25 per hour for a total of 2,080 hours per year. The record 
contains an affidavit of support completed by the petitioner and listing his annual salary as $120,000. However, 
the record is devoid of any evidence that this salary is significantly higher than that of other dentists or is 
comparable to dentists in private practice or at community health centers who are at the very top of their field. 
The record does suggest that the petitioner's compensation is significantly lower than that of dentists in private 
practice. the petitioner's colleague, affirms tha-s definitely not doing this for money, as 
I know he could obtain more money working in a private practice." Hence the evidence submitted does not 
demonstrate that the petitioner is highly compensated in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained 
acclaim. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Although the director determined that the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirement that his entry would 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States, we do not consider that issue here. The petitioner meets 
none of the regulatory criteria to demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim and is thus ineligible for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Consequently, we do not reach the issue of whether or not 
his entry into the United States would substantially benefit prospectively this country as required by section 
203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. (j 1 153(b)(l)(A)(iii). 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is a skilled dentist who provides vital services for a community health 
clinic and is highly respected by his employer and colleagues. However, the record does not establish that the 
petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a dentist or community dental health 
professional placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with 
extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. # 1 153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may 
not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. # 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.