Outcome: Dismissed
FEB192013_02B2203
Our summary
A physician petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on several criteria including judging and original contributions. The AAO upheld the director's denial, finding that performance reviews do not constitute formal judging and that contributions lacked demonstrated major significance. Appeal dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner failed to establish eligibility; director's findings not contested on appeal and abandoned.
- Judging · Performance reviews of other physicians do not satisfy formal judging designation requirement.
- Original contributions · Petitioner failed to demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.
- Published material · Petitioner failed to establish eligibility; director's findings not contested on appeal and abandoned.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and extraordinary ability overall.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Petitioner failed to establish eligibility; director's findings not contested on appeal and abandoned. | |
| Not met | Performance reviews of other physicians do not satisfy formal judging designation requirement. | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field. | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to establish eligibility; director's findings not contested on appeal and abandoned. | |
| Not met | Petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and extraordinary ability overall. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
