EB-1AEducation and academiaIndividualDecided March 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR222022_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A physical education specialist met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits analysis. The AAO found his peer review experience, publication record, and conference participation insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the top tier.
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 petitioner met judging criterion.
- Leading or critical role · Director found petitioner met leading or critical role criterion.
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner met scholarly articles criterion.
What was missing
- Final merits · Limited peer review work, only four publications in fifteen years; insufficient to show sustained acclaim at top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found petitioner met judging criterion. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director found petitioner met leading or critical role criterion. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner met scholarly articles criterion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Limited peer review work, only four publications in fifteen years; insufficient to show sustained acclaim at top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.