EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalEmployerDecided April 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR072026_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Beneficiary participated as judge of others' work in the field; criterion satisfied.
- Scholarly articles · Beneficiary authorship of scholarly articles criterion satisfied.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate beneficiary performed leading or critical roles at the organizations; distinguished reputation analysis not necessary.
- Original contributions · Expert letters lack specific concrete examples of major significance impact; highly cited publications alone insufficient without demonstrated major significance to field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Beneficiary participated as judge of others' work in the field; criterion satisfied. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Beneficiary authorship of scholarly articles criterion satisfied. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate beneficiary performed leading or critical roles at the organizations; distinguished reputation analysis not necessary. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Expert letters lack specific concrete examples of major significance impact; highly cited publications alone insufficient without demonstrated major significance to field. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Petitioner meets only two of three required initial evidence criteria; final merits determination reserved per Kazarian. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.