EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN292021_10B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Cancer researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; Director found two met. Petitioner on appeal asserted three additional criteria and high salary. AAO found only two criteria satisfied overall and dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for 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
- Judging · Director found criterion satisfied; not disturbed on appeal.
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; not disturbed on appeal.
What was missing
- Awards · Award selection criteria and recognition not substantiated; evidence suggests award for students not established researchers.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not establish hospital positions as leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations.
- Original contributions · Citation figures not shown to be particularly high compared to other researchers in field.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not satisfy three of ten evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability; sustained acclaim not shown.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found criterion satisfied; not disturbed on appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found criterion satisfied; not disturbed on appeal. |
 Awards | Not met | Award selection criteria and recognition not substantiated; evidence suggests award for students not established researchers. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not establish hospital positions as leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citation figures not shown to be particularly high compared to other researchers in field. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed for first time on appeal; not considered under regulatory requirement to identify errors below. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not satisfy three of ten evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability; sustained acclaim not shown. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.