EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided 2018Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR302018_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A cardiologist employed at a university medical school sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. However, the final merits analysis rejected the petition, finding the petitioner's peer review participation, publications, and research role on cardiac arrest did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the field's elite.
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 · Peer reviewer work established, but participation does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.
- Leading or critical role · Critical role as postdoctoral fellow in distinguished university medical school established; does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
- Scholarly articles · Authorship of scholarly articles established; however, publication record does not demonstrate rise to top of field or sustained acclaim.
What was missing
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Peer reviewer work established, but participation does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Critical role as postdoctoral fellow in distinguished university medical school established; does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authorship of scholarly articles established; however, publication record does not demonstrate rise to top of field or sustained acclaim. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not fully analyzed; decision notes lack of evidence on major significance of cardiac arrest research contribution. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not separately analyze; considered in final merits without meeting published material criterion specifically. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.