EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided January 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN272025_02B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.
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 and AAO found petitioner satisfies judging criterion.
What was missing
- Awards · No evidence of major, internationally recognized award established.
- High salary · No evidence submitted that meets plain language requirements of criterion; no comparison to remuneration of others in field.
- Membership · Claimed for first time on appeal; cannot assert new criterion on appeal; membership in National Federation of Massage Therapists does not meet plain language requirements.
- Original contributions · No evidence of special technique's appreciable impact on field; petitioner failed to explain how evidence supports claim; burden of proof not met.
- Final merits · Record in aggregate does not support sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner lacks career of acclaimed work required for classification.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director and AAO found petitioner satisfies judging criterion. |
 Awards | Not met | No evidence of major, internationally recognized award established. |
 High salary | Not met | No evidence submitted that meets plain language requirements of criterion; no comparison to remuneration of others in field. |
 Membership | Not met | Claimed for first time on appeal; cannot assert new criterion on appeal; membership in National Federation of Massage Therapists does not meet plain language requirements. |
 Original contributions | Not met | No evidence of special technique's appreciable impact on field; petitioner failed to explain how evidence supports claim; burden of proof not met. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record in aggregate does not support sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner lacks career of acclaimed work required for classification. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.