dismissed EB-1A Case: Periodontics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 33565037 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a periodontist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner meets the statutory and regulatory definition of extraordinary ability. The 
matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 must either demonstrate a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
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). 
Here, the Director concluded that the Petitioner meets three of the initial criteria: 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)(iv) (judging the work of others), (v) (authorship of scholarly articles), and (ix) (high 
salary), which the record supports. In the final merits determination, however, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated her sustained national or international acclaim in the field of 
periodontics or shown that she is one of that small percentage at the very top of that field, and denied 
the petition accordingly. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief contending that the Director did not 
consider the record as a whole and ignored the Petitioner's more recent accomplishments. Upon 
review, we conclude that the record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrate that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner contends that in pointing out that most of her scholarly publication history and 
supporting evidence dated from 2015 to 2018, the Director failed to consider the totality of the record, 
which includes a scholarly article from 2023, as well as the fact that all of the petition support letters 
date from that year. We disagree. The Director did not ignore the Petitioner's most recent work, but 
correctly pointed out that nearly all of the Petitioner's scholarly production and acclaim occurred 
several years before the petition was filed. The statutory definition of extraordinary ability requires a 
person's acclaim to be sustained. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) 
(stating that petitioners must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time of filing and 
continue to be eligible through adjudication). Contrary to the Petitioner's claims, the fact that she 
published her first article in 2015 and her last one in 2023 does not, in and of itself: establish that she 
sustained any level of acclaim for that entire period, and the remainder of the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence to establish that this is the case. 
The fact that the Petitioner's support letters were written in 2023 also does not indicate that her acclaim 
has lasted through any particular timeframe. The support letters were all written by the Petitioner's 
coworkers, collaborators, and teachers, and they comprise nearly all of the evidence of the Petitioner's 
acclaim. It is generally expected that a researcher at the top of their field would gamer acclaim over 
a sustained period from outside their immediate professional and personal circles, and that they would 
be able to provide evidence of that acclaim in forms other than letters, such as awards, media coverage, 
patents, and citation figures. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(3), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual ("Letters of support, while not without weight, should not form 
the cornerstone of a successful claim for this classification. . . [ and] should be corroborated by 
documentary evidence in the record"). The Petitioner has not provided such corroboration here. 
For example, several of the support letters cite the Petitioner's doctoral research on the I protein 
as a highlight of her career and state that it received a great deal of acclaim, was widely cited, and 
provided groundwork for future studies on in vitro enamel growth and amelogenesis imperfecta. But 
beyond some contemporaneous coverage of the research in professional publications, the record does 
not include documentation of this research's acclaim. Nor does it show that the I I research was 
2 
widely adopted or otherwise so influential in the field of periodontics that it would place the Petitioner 
at the very top of her field. Instead, much of the provided citation evidence consists of the Petitioner's 
co-authors self-citing as they develop their research, as well as review articles which provide a broad 
overview of developments in the field. Furthermore, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner's co­
authors have substantially more citations than her, which does not indicate that she is at the top of her 
field. The Petitioner does not address this issue on appeal. 
It is not apparent from the evidence provided that the Petitioner is one of that small percentage at the 
very top of her field or that she has sustained a national or international level of acclaim over time. 
The two media articles about the I I protein research mention the Petitioner as one of the 
contributing researchers, but these articles are from eight years before the time of filing and do not 
establish that her research work has sustained that level of interest from others in her field over time. 
The fact that the Petitioner was a finalist in a 2021 research forum poster competition is notable, but 
given the much more extensive publication histories and honors of the coworkers who wrote her 
recommendation letters, the record does not establish that this constitutes a level of acclaim 
commensurate with being part of that small percentage at the very top of her field. Similarly, the 
Petitioner provided evidence that she performed peer review duties for two academic journals in 2023, 
but did not provide any evidence indicating that these journals are especially prestigious. In this 
context, the Petitioner's high salary as a practicing periodontist is insufficient to meet the Petitioner's 
burden of proof and establish her eligibility. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (stating that 
the "preponderance of the evidence" standard requires us to examine each piece of evidence for 
relevance and probative value both individually and in the context of the totality of the evidence to 
determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true). 
The totality of the record indicates that the Petitioner conducted promising research as a graduate 
student, and that she has resumed doing so in the last few years while also working as a periodontist. 
However, it does not indicate that she has received acclaim for this work on a national or international 
level over a sustained period of time. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Nor does the record include 
extensive documentation showing that she has risen to the very top of her field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The petition will therefore remain denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3