Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided May 2021Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

MAY242021_02B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

An anesthesiologist and professor claimed extraordinary ability under five EB-1A criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but found she did not meet membership or original contributions criteria. With only two criteria met, the petitioner fell short of the required three, and the appeal was 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 · Service center finding undisturbed; petitioner participated as judge of others' work
  • Scholarly articles · Service center finding undisturbed; petitioner authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals

What was missing

  • Leading or critical role · Claimed but decision does not analyze; appeal dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold
  • Membership · Record lacks evidence that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
  • Original contributions · Citations and downloads show attention but not major significance; lacks comparison to field standards
  • Final merits · Petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; not among small percentage at top of field

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetService center finding undisturbed; petitioner participated as judge of others' work
Scholarly articlesMetService center finding undisturbed; petitioner authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals
Leading or critical roleNot metClaimed but decision does not analyze; appeal dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold
MembershipNot metRecord lacks evidence that membership required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
Original contributionsNot metCitations and downloads show attention but not major significance; lacks comparison to field standards
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedCriterion not claimed; decision states petitioner did not receive major award
Final meritsNot metPetitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; not among small percentage at top of field

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.