EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided May 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY282020_05B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryNot metPublished materialNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Oncologist in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of ten required criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). Income comparisons lacked credibility, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.
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 agreed petitioner met judging criterion.
- Scholarly articles · Director and AAO agreed petitioner met scholarly articles criterion.
What was missing
- High salary · Income figures contained inconsistencies not credibly reconciled; insufficient basis to compare remuneration to other director physicians.
- Published material · Published material must be about petitioner; most articles are scholarly articles falling under different criterion.
- Final merits · Did not meet three criteria threshold; aggregate review shows no sustained national or international acclaim required.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director and AAO agreed petitioner met judging criterion. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director and AAO agreed petitioner met scholarly articles criterion. |
 High salary | Not met | Income figures contained inconsistencies not credibly reconciled; insufficient basis to compare remuneration to other director physicians. |
 Published material | Not met | Published material must be about petitioner; most articles are scholarly articles falling under different criterion. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned this criterion on appeal by not contesting director's conclusion. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned this criterion on appeal by not contesting director's conclusion. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned this criterion on appeal by not contesting director's conclusion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Did not meet three criteria threshold; aggregate review shows no sustained national or international acclaim required. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.