EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided November 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
NOV242020_08B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A radiologist self-petitioner claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. The AAO rejected membership, original contributions, and leading critical role as not meeting the standard. The petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for 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 · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO affirmed without detailed analysis
- Scholarly articles · Four published scholarly articles establish satisfaction of criterion
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Accreditation numbers do not demonstrate distinguished reputation or prestige compared to other accreditations
- Membership · Board certification is rigorous credential, not outstanding achievement; percentage of radiologists with certification not established
- Original contributions · Scholarly articles show originality but insufficient impact; citations do not establish major significance or widespread adoption
- Published material · Petitioner claimed but submitted no published material naming him; claim abandoned
- Final merits · Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found criterion satisfied; AAO affirmed without detailed analysis |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Four published scholarly articles establish satisfaction of criterion |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Accreditation numbers do not demonstrate distinguished reputation or prestige compared to other accreditations |
 Membership | Not met | Board certification is rigorous credential, not outstanding achievement; percentage of radiologists with certification not established |
 Original contributions | Not met | Scholarly articles show originality but insufficient impact; citations do not establish major significance or widespread adoption |
 Published material | Not met | Petitioner claimed but submitted no published material naming him; claim abandoned |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim or establish receipt of major internationally recognized award |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Not applicable to radiologist; criterion not mentioned or claimed |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Not applicable to radiologist; criterion not mentioned or claimed |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim or provide evidence of high salary |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.