EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided November 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
NOV302020_04B2203
Scholarly articlesMetJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Physician and researcher in hematology oncology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only one criterion (scholarly articles) according to AAO analysis. AAO dismissed appeal holding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in field.
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
- Scholarly articles · AAO agreed with Director that petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications
What was missing
- Judging · Peer review invitations and teaching duties insufficient; no proof petitioner actually completed peer reviews or that teaching constitutes judging work of others
- Original contributions · Petitioner failed to show original contributions of major significance; no evidence of widespread implementation or remarkable field impact
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or upper echelon status in hematology oncology field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | AAO agreed with Director that petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications |
 Judging | Not met | Peer review invitations and teaching duties insufficient; no proof petitioner actually completed peer reviews or that teaching constitutes judging work of others |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner failed to show original contributions of major significance; no evidence of widespread implementation or remarkable field impact |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned this issue and did not contest on appeal |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not contest Director finding on appeal |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or upper echelon status in hematology oncology field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.