Healthcare: dentistry (prosthodontics)
The appeal was dismissed because, in the final merits determination, the Petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A dentist appealed SCOPS' denial of his extraordinary-ability petition. SCOPS had accepted that he met at least three initial criteria but concluded he had not shown sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The AAO declined to consider the new evidence he offered on appeal and weighed the existing record in a final merits analysis. Memberships, one judging episode, a thin and dated publication record, employment roles, supportive letters and about three years of salary data were each found insufficient, and the appeal was dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|
Why the AAO decided this way
- SCOPS determined that the Petitioner met at least three initial criteria, so the AAO went directly to the final merits determination and weighed the totality of the evidence.
- The AAO did not consider new evidence submitted on appeal because he had been put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it earlier.
- His memberships, a single instance of serving on a student examination board, a limited publication record from many years earlier, and his employment roles were not shown to reflect sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
- The recommendation letters praised him generally but did not show that the overall field, rather than a few solicited writers, views him as being in the upper echelon.
- Salary information covered only about three years and was not compared with the earnings of others at the top of the field.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 2024)
- Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary