EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalEmployerDecided May 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY292020_10B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal 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 · Petitioner fulfilled judging criterion; engaged in peer review of journal articles
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Organizations lacked demonstrated distinguished reputation; evidence inadequate
- Original contributions · Citation numbers and conference participation insufficient; patent shows originality but not major significance to field
- Published material · Article must be about petitioner in major media; Albany Times Union not established as major medium
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among upper level of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner fulfilled judging criterion; engaged in peer review of journal articles |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Organizations lacked demonstrated distinguished reputation; evidence inadequate |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citation numbers and conference participation insufficient; patent shows originality but not major significance to field |
 Published material | Not met | Article must be about petitioner in major media; Albany Times Union not established as major medium |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion; scholarly publication count alone insufficient |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among upper level of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.