Date of Decision: January 29, 2021
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professor of Endodontics
Field: Endodontics
Nationality: Turkish
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Published Materials: The petitioner has written approximately 50 scholarly articles, many of which have been cited in scientific literature.
Membership in Associations: The petitioner has been a member of various scientific and academic committees.
Participation as a Judge: The petitioner has served on committees that judged the work of colleagues and administered academic exams.
Criteria Not Met:
Significance of Contributions: The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her contributions to the field have been of major significance.
Sustained Acclaim: The petitioner did not sufficiently prove sustained national or international acclaim, as recent influential research publications were lacking.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
Not specifically applicable. The petitioner did not present evidence of major internationally recognized awards, focusing instead on published materials and committee memberships.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
The petitioner has written around 50 scholarly articles. While some articles have been cited frequently, the most recent influential article was from 2009, which did not support a claim of sustained national or international acclaim.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner identified new classifications in the field of endodontics early in her career. However, she did not demonstrate how these contributions have had a lasting major impact on the field.
Participation as a Judge:
The petitioner served on various academic committees, including those evaluating associate professorship candidates. However, these roles were seen as local or ad hoc responsibilities rather than indicators of widespread recognition.
Membership in Associations:
The petitioner held editorial positions on the boards of several journals. However, the duties of these positions and their significance were not well-documented.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
Approximately 50 scholarly articles authored by the petitioner were presented, with some having substantial citations. Despite this, the most impactful work was not recent enough to demonstrate ongoing influence.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
The petitioner held several significant academic positions but did not show that these roles elevated her to the very top of her field on a national or international level.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
Not applicable.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable.
Supporting Documentation
Published Articles: Approximately 50 scholarly articles authored by the petitioner.
Recommendation Letters: Letters from various professionals, some of which were similar in content and lacked specificity.
Committee Memberships: Documentation of the petitioner’s roles on several academic committees.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her contributions were of major significance or that she had achieved sustained national or international acclaim. Although she met some criteria, the evidence did not support the required level of recognition to qualify for extraordinary ability status.
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering more detailed evidence of the significance of her contributions.
Address any gaps in demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim and specific plans for continued work in the United States.
Seeking additional professional endorsements that clearly articulate the major impact of her work on the field of endodontics could strengthen a future application.
