Date of Decision: OCT. 25, 2019
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Dentist and Researcher
Field: Dentistry
Nationality:
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Approved
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Authorship of scholarly articles:
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.
Criteria Not Met:
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards:
The petitioner provided award certificates for several awards, but the Director found that the translations were not properly certified and that the awards were not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field.
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance:
The petitioner submitted evidence of approximately 70 patents in the field of dentistry, but the Director found that the translations were incomplete and that the evidence did not demonstrate a contribution of major significance in the field. The letters of recommendation provided did not establish the major significance of the petitioner’s research.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Gold Medals at various international exhibitions:
The Director found that the petitioner did not provide properly certified translations and that the awards did not meet the regulatory criterion for national or international recognition in the field.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Co-authorship of scholarly articles:
The petitioner was recognized for his co-authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Patents and research contributions:
The petitioner was credited with co-owning approximately 70 Russian patents. However, the evidence did not establish that these contributions were of major significance in the field.
Participation as a Judge:
- Not applicable
Membership in Associations:
- Not applicable
Authorship of scholarly articles:
- Co-authorship of articles:
The petitioner documented his co-authorship of scholarly articles in major trade publications.
Leading or critical role performed:
- Not applicable
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Not applicable
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Not applicable
Commercial successes in the Performing Arts:
- Not applicable
Supporting Documentation
- Award certificates:
Provided for several gold medals won at international exhibitions, but translations were not properly certified. - Patents:
Documentation of approximately 70 Russian patents in the field of dentistry, but translations were incomplete, and evidence did not demonstrate major significance. - Letters of recommendation:
Several letters praising the petitioner’s research and contributions, but did not establish their major significance in the field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal is dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed. The petitioner has not shown that his accomplishments are indicative of sustained national or international acclaim or that they are consistent with a career of acclaimed work in the field.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider submitting additional evidence that meets the required criteria or reapplying with more comprehensive documentation that addresses the deficiencies noted in the decision.
