EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided May 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY182023_01B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to 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
- Judging · Petitioner's work with CRM-DF satisfies criterion of judging work of others
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award documented
- Leading or critical role · Leadership positions on local boards do not demonstrate recognition on national or international scale
- Membership · Memberships in CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF do not meet criteria requiring outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts
- Original contributions · While original contributions made, petitioner did not establish their major significance in field
- Published material · No published material about petitioner in professional or major media relating to his work documented
- Final merits · Record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among small percentage at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner's work with CRM-DF satisfies criterion of judging work of others |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award documented |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Leadership positions on local boards do not demonstrate recognition on national or international scale |
 Membership | Not met | Memberships in CRM-DF and ABMLPM-DF do not meet criteria requiring outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts |
 Original contributions | Not met | While original contributions made, petitioner did not establish their major significance in field |
 Published material | Not met | No published material about petitioner in professional or major media relating to his work documented |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among small percentage at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.