dismissed EB-1A Case: Orthodontics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8099829 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an orthodontist, researcher and educator, seeks classification as an alien 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 denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements, it did not establish that she has 
the requisite sustained national or international acclaim in her field and is among the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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) 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, 
(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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner completed her initial training in orthodontics in India, and continued her training in the 
United States at the I !University, becoming certified by the Ameri~ao Board of Orthodontics 
in 2014. At the time of filing she was employed as an assistant professor at !university. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met the requisite three of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), those relating to her participation as a judge of the 
work of others, original contributions of major significance to the field, and authorship of scholarly 
articles published in professional journals. Upon review, we agree that the record supports the 
Petitioner's qualification under two of those criteria. Specifically, she has submitted evidence that she 
has co-authored eight papers or book chapters which have been published in professional medical 
journals or books, and that she has served as a peer reviewer on more than twenty occasions for several 
scientific journals. However, we do not agree with the Director's determination regarding her original 
contributions of major significance in her field under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially stresses that two articles she published in scientific journals rank 
among the top 10% most cited articles published in the area of clinical medicine in their respective 
years, based upon statistics appearing in a report from Clarivate Analytics 1. We note, however, that 
the area of clinical medicine is significantly broader than the Petitioner's field of orthodontics, 
including those who conduct clinical research in many other medical specialties. As the record 
includes evidence indicating that citation figures such as these are field-specific, the fact that two of 
the Petitioner's papers were cited by others in their own published work at a higher rate when 
compared to all researchers in the area of clinical medicine does not necessarily establish that this 
research has been of major significance in the field. 
1 All citation figures and relating statistics reflect data available at the time of filing. 
2 
To support her assertion of the value of these statistics, the Petitioner submitted a paper published in 
the journal Scientometrics which suggests that the authorship of papers shown to be in the top 10% in 
terms of citations are one of three factors that should be given "the highest weight when comparing 
the scientific performance of single researchers." However, this evidence does not establish that 
metrics that may be suitable for comparing applicants for academic research positions and grants are 
useful as indicators that a researcher has made contributions of major significance. 
In addition, the Petitioner refers to the total number of citations to her published work as compared to 
other researchers in her field, and points to data from Microsoft Academic to support her assertion. 
We first note that the number of total citations is one measure which may be appropriate in evaluating 
sustained acclaim or standing in the field under a final merits determination, as the Petitioner does on 
appeal, but it does not serve as an accurate gauge of the significance of a specific contribution the 
Petitioner has made to the field. In addition, we note that this data, which indicates that in the period 
from 2010 to 2019, the Petitioner ranked in the top 2% in terms of the total number of citations to her 
work compared to others in the fields of orthodontics, dentistry and dental surgery, excludes from 
consideration research which was published prior to 2010, and thus does not account for the research 
of those who have been working in the field of orthodontics prior to 2010 and who remain active. 
More importantly, the Petitioner has not established that the research in the two papers noted above, 
or the other papers she has co-authored, has had a significant impact on the work of others in her field. 
The most recently published and highly cited paper of the two referenced above appeared in the 
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) in 2014, and reported the 
results of a survey conducted by the Petitioner and her colleagues regarding patients' and 
orthodontists' perceptions of the value of a reduction in the treatment time for orthodontic procedures. 
Aside from the citation figures and statistics, the Petitioner also submitted evidence in the form of 
reference letters and citing articles to establish the impact of this research on the field of orthodontics. 2 
One such letter was written byl lof the University I l who indicates 
that the Petitioner's findings regarding patients' willingness to accept and pay for newer orthodontic 
procedures "is of tremendous value to third party companies who rely on this type of data when 
developing and marketing new clinical procedures." He adds that "unsurprisingly, [the Petitioner] 
determined that all groups displayed greater interest in non-invasive procedures as opposed to invasive 
procedures," and that the "frequent citation of [ the Petitioner's] survey research is to be expected given 
the general interest by patients, providers and referring dentists in reducing orthodontic treatment 
time." 
Another reference letter which focuses on this specific work came from~------~of the 
University of I l He indicates that he conducted a study of an orthodontic device 
because he had found a discrepancy regarding its performance in reports, and because the Petitioner's 
study showing patients' desire for accelerated treatments drove his concern about claims made 
regarding the device. The Petitioner also included a copy ofl ~s paper which cited her 
research results, in which he and his co-authors indicate that her finding that patients desire accelerated 
treatments were "not surprising." 
2 All of the reference letters in the record have been thoroughly reviewed, including those not specifically mentioned in 
this decision. 
3 
A third letter discussing the impact of the Petitioner's research in patients' and orthodontists' treatment 
expectations was written by [ . I Professor of Orthodontics at I I I I He states that awareness of patient and practitioner views on treatment options "is paramount 
to providing informed patient care, so any study that can clarify these preferences is of immense value 
to the field." He then writes that he has used the Petitioner's research "as a platform to further my 
own clinical studies," and refers to a paper he published in AJODO four years after the Petitioner's 
paper was published which evaluated the efficacy of vibrational force treatments to accelerate space 
closure. A partial copy of this paper was submitted in the record which shows that after citing the 
Petitioner's paper in the introduction for its finding that patients prefer non-invasive treatments, 
.__ ______ __. and his colleagues focused on examining whether a particular dental appliance 
provided treatment benefits. Although these letters and papers indicate that the Petitioner's survey 
paper disseminated useful data which was utilized by several other researchers to support their research 
goals, they do not establish that it had an impact of major significance by advancing the field of 
orthodontics. 
As an additional contribution of major significance, the Petitioner repeats on appeal her assertion that 
clinical trials have proceeded on the basis of her work. In support of this assertion, the Petitioner 
submitted evidence in her response to the Director's RFE from the website https://clinicaltrials.gov, 
and highlighted citations to published research contained in reports on four clinical trials. Those 
research papers, also included in the record, each contain a citation to the Petitioner's survey paper 
described above, either in the introduction or conclusion of the papers. However, while each of these 
papers cite to information from the Petitioner's paper regarding the preferences of orthodontists and 
their patients, none of them build or expand upon these statements, instead focusing on the efficacy of 
certain treatments. In addition to the example of.__ ______ ~s research discussed above, other 
papers reporting clinical trials of orthodontic treatments in the record included a citation of the 
Petitioner's research towards the end of the paper to reflect that the treatment studied met the surveyed 
orthodontists' expectations. This evidence shows that after researching the efficacy of treatments, the 
researchers used the Petitioner's data to evaluate the likelihood of a certain treatment being considered 
worthwhile by orthodontists and patients, but it does not support the Petitioner's assertion that her 
research formed the basis for these clinical trials. 
The Petitioner further asserted in her response to the Director's RFE that her work had led other 
researchers to develop guidelines for orthodontic treatment. She points to a reference letter from 
of the University I I who discusses her research on alveolar ridge '-------------' manipulation procedures. He notes that the Petitioner and her colleagues used two different methods 
to evaluate the outcome of this procedure, which ultimately demonstrated that is superfluous . 
.__ ______ __,indicates that he "directly drew on" these papers in developing a systematic review 
of orthodontic treatments, and states that he and his colleagues reached their conclusion "with the aid 
of [the Petitioner's] insights." He concludes that his review, and another conducted by a different 
group of researchers, "demonstrate the significant influence of [ the Petitioner's] research on clinical 
practice." A partial copy of I I' paper is included in the record, which serves to 
verify his citation of the Petitioner's papers among that of other researchers. However, while this 
evidence establishes that other researchers have built upon this aspect of the Petitioner's work, the 
record does not include evidence supporting her claims that her research has led others to develop 
guidelines that have been implemented or that the conclusions of researchers who built upon her work 
have been adopted by other orthodontists in their clinical work. 
4 
Upon review of the evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's claim to have made original 
contributions of major significance in her field, we disagree with the Director and find that it does not 
support the conclusion that she meets this criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw that aspect of the 
Director's decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
Specifically, while the evidence establishes that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
for her work as a peer reviewer, it does not demonstrate that this activity places her in the small group 
at the top of her field or is indicative of acclaim at the national or international level. While she 
verified that she is (or was) an editorial board member for the Journal of the World Federation of 
Orthodontists (JWFO), which suggests she took on broader responsibilities including advising of the 
journal's policies, we note that the only evidence of her activity are five emails thanking her for her 
review of papers submitted for publication. In addition, the record does not include information about 
JWFO that would support the Petitioner's assertion that her selection and service as an editorial board 
member for the journal reflects her position at the top of the field. Further, our review of the 
significance of her contributions to the field considered the impact of her published research, and the 
evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's publication record otherwise brought her sustained 
acclaim or elevated standing in her field. 
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 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 section203(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 she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 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. 
5