EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided 2017Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN052017_01B2203
Scholarly articlesMetJudgingNot metMembershipNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A medical director and spinal surgeon sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria in addition to judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding membership and judging not met and that aggregate record does not demonstrate extraordinary ability.
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
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner met scholarly articles criterion; petitioner satisfied this criterion.
What was missing
- Judging · Served as thesis and faculty advisor, not judge consistent with plain language of regulatory criterion.
- Membership · Associations do not require outstanding achievements as condition for membership; no evidence that committees comprised of recognized experts.
- Final merits · Record does not support finding of extraordinary ability; petitioner did not meet three required evidentiary criteria.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner met scholarly articles criterion; petitioner satisfied this criterion. |
 Judging | Not met | Served as thesis and faculty advisor, not judge consistent with plain language of regulatory criterion. |
 Membership | Not met | Associations do not require outstanding achievements as condition for membership; no evidence that committees comprised of recognized experts. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not submit evidence of major internationally recognized award. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not support finding of extraordinary ability; petitioner did not meet three required evidentiary criteria. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.