EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalEmployerDecided August 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG192025_02B2203
JudgingMetMembershipMetPublished materialMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.
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 conducted peer review; SCOPS determined criterion met.
- Membership · SCOPS determined beneficiary met this criterion; AAO did not disturb this finding.
- Published material · Eight scholarly articles with 78 citations; SCOPS determined criterion met.
- Scholarly articles · Eight scholarly articles; overlaps with published material criterion met by SCOPS.
What was missing
- High salary · Petitioner claimed but AAO did not find salary commanding evidence sufficient for extraordinary ability.
- Original contributions · Petitioner claimed but AAO found work did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance.
- Final merits · Despite meeting initial criteria, beneficiary lacks sustained national or international acclaim; not among small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Beneficiary conducted peer review; SCOPS determined criterion met. |
 Membership | Met | SCOPS determined beneficiary met this criterion; AAO did not disturb this finding. |
 Published material | Met | Eight scholarly articles with 78 citations; SCOPS determined criterion met. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Eight scholarly articles; overlaps with published material criterion met by SCOPS. |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner claimed but AAO did not find salary commanding evidence sufficient for extraordinary ability. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner claimed but AAO found work did not demonstrate original contributions of major significance. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed or analyzed as a distinct criterion in the decision. |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting initial criteria, beneficiary lacks sustained national or international acclaim; not 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.