dismissed EB-1A Case: Endodontics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10319143 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN . 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a professor of endodontics , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S .C. § l 153(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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria , as required . 
The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Director reopened the 
proceeding , and concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, but did 
not establish that she has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the small 
percentage at the very top of the field . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 , 
(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 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has worked atl I University inl I Turkey, since 1989, becoming a foll 
professor in 1998. The Petitioner has served on various committees, atl I University and 
elsewhere. She intends to continue working as an educator and researcher in the United States. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has 
met at least three criteria. Therefore, rather than discuss the specific requirements of the evidentiary 
criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination 
below, and evaluate whether she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained 
national or international acclaim and that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 
In a final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of 
the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary 
ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown 
her eligibility. 
The Petitioner states that she "has been on international scientific committees, respected 
national/international journals, and prestigious committees where she judged the work of her 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
2 
colleagues and made determinations regarding their respective career advancement." The record does 
not establish the significance of these committee positions. The Petitioner asserts, for instance, that 
she "has served on the I I Committee," but the record 
indicates that this committee was convened for one specific conference in Turkey in 2007. Conference 
documentation names the members of six different committees, all of them apparently Turkish. In 
contrast, the named members oftht':I )'s Executive Team represent a range of nationalities. The 
record, therefore, indicates the Petitioner's committee position was a local, ad hoc responsibility. The 
Petitioner does not establish how these committee members were selected, and therefore she has not 
shown that her selection reflects acclaim in the field. 
The Petitioner contends that she received "a national honor" in the form of an assignment "as a 
permanent member of the committee which administered the Associate Professor Exams by the 
Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Turkey." The record does not explain the selection 
process or show that the field considers the assignment "a national honor." Furthermore, despite the 
use of the term "Permanent Member" in the English translations, a series of letters from the Council 
over several years describe the committees as 'juries" for specific, named candidates for associate 
professorships. The letters show different committee/jury members for different candidates, indicating 
that there is no permanent, standing committee that continues to exist from one candidate to the next. 
The Petitioner demonstrated her membership on the editorial boards of the Italian Journal of 
Endodontics and the Turkish Clinics Journal of Endodontics, and on a '1 I committee" for the 
Turkish journal. The record does not establish the duties of these positions, or how she was chosen 
for them. The record shows that the Italian journal's Editorial Board has 65 members, and a 2005 
letter from the Turkish Dental Association describes the Turkish journal's I !committee as 
"large." The Petitioner has not shown that these positions are hallmarks of qualifying national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has written about 50 published scholarly articles since 1990. A printout from the 
Google Scholar search engine shows substantial citations for some of those articles, and the Director 
took that evidence into consideration. At the same time, when considering the question of sustained 
acclaim, we cannot ignore that the most recent article with a significant number of citations appeared 
in 2009. The submitted citation data does not establish that the Petitioner continues to produce 
influential research. 
The I l(shapes) of toothl I structures are classified under a system developed by 
I lin 1984, and bearing his name. The Petitioner contends that one of her most 
significant contributions is being the first endodontist to identify newl I not previously 
identified b~ I The Director took account of heavy citation of some early articles by the 
Petitioner describing these neJ 1 0 11 ess than ten years after the introduction of the I I 
classifications. But the Petitioner has not shown that these modifications to what was still a new 
classification system have contributed to sustained acclaim. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not give sufficient consideration to letters in the record. 
Most of these letters are from individuals who have worked with the Petitioner in some capacity, and 
who describe their collaborations with her. Such letters can provide valuable first-hand information 
3 
about the Petitioner's work in detail, but are not evidence of wider recognition. Even then, most of 
the letters describe the Petitioner's work only in vague and general terms. Three of the letters contain 
this exact sentence: "[The Petitioner's] major research projects focus on.__ _______ __. and 
I I of materials used in the field of endodontic treatments, which is reflected in her 
national and international publications." These similarities strongly suggest common authorship, or 
at least reliance on some kind of template. See Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dep 't. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 
519 (2d Cir. 2007) ( concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when an asylum 
applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). One letter 
containing the shared passage is from a bank president who claims no credentials or expertise in 
dentistry, and who does not explain how he is in a position to evaluate the significance of the 
Petitioner's work. 
The Petitioner has established a degree of success and influence in her field, but the record does not 
establish that her reputation and recognition have risen to the required level of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 her work 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 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4