EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided 2017Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC112017_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A staff physician claimed extraordinary ability in medicine under EB-1A. The AAO found he met only two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. His claims for membership, original contributions, and critical role were rejected as insufficient. Appeals dismissed because three criteria required.
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 · Director's finding accepted; petitioner reviewed manuscripts for professional publications
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; decision does not disturb this finding
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not perform in critical role; hospital's distinguished reputation not demonstrated
- Membership · Fellow degree not separate membership class; standards do not require outstanding achievements
- Original contributions · Three articles on homocysteine lack evidence of major significance in field
- Final merits · Did not meet three criteria threshold; final merits review not required
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director's finding accepted; petitioner reviewed manuscripts for professional publications |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found criterion satisfied; decision does not disturb this finding |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not perform in critical role; hospital's distinguished reputation not demonstrated |
 Membership | Not met | Fellow degree not separate membership class; standards do not require outstanding achievements |
 Original contributions | Not met | Three articles on homocysteine lack evidence of major significance in field |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner withdrew claim; decision states not to address further |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail; decision addresses other criteria instead |
 Final merits | Not met | Did not meet three criteria threshold; final merits review not required |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.