Date of Decision: May 27, 2020
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Orthodontist, Researcher, and Educator
Field: Orthodontics
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Criterion 1: Authorship of Scholarly Articles
The petitioner demonstrated that she co-authored eight papers or book chapters published in professional medical journals or books.
Criterion 2: Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others
The petitioner provided evidence that she served as a peer reviewer on more than twenty occasions for several scientific journals.
Criteria Not Met:
Criterion 1: Original Contributions of Major Significance
The petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance in the field of orthodontics but did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their major significance. While her research was cited and utilized by other researchers, the impact of these contributions was not established as being of major significance to the field.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won: Not applicable
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner did not meet the criterion for published material about her in professional or major trade publications.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner claimed contributions such as research on patients’ and orthodontists’ perceptions of treatment time reduction. However, the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate the widespread impact or major significance of these contributions.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner provided evidence that she served as a peer reviewer for multiple scientific journals, meeting this criterion.
Membership in Associations: Not applicable
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner demonstrated that she authored several scholarly articles, meeting this criterion.
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
Articles and Publications: Various articles and publications about the petitioner’s work.
Letters of Reference: Letters from colleagues and associates detailing the petitioner’s contributions and roles.
Research Papers: Copies of research papers authored or co-authored by the petitioner.
Review Records: Documentation of the petitioner’s participation as a peer reviewer.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to meet at least three of the required criteria for demonstrating extraordinary ability. While the petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles and participation as a judge of the work of others, the evidence provided did not establish the major significance of her contributions to the field of orthodontics. The petitioner did not show that her professional accomplishments placed her among the small percentage at the very top of her field. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification sought.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more substantial evidence of extraordinary ability, focusing on contributions with demonstrated major significance, awards with national or international recognition, and other achievements that demonstrate standing at the top of the field. Exploring other immigration options that may be more suitable given the evidence available is also recommended.
