EB-1AHealthcare, clinicalIndividualDecided October 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT182022_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A Venezuelan OB/GYN physician claimed extraordinary ability through eight criteria. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. However, these routine academic activities lack the acclaim requirement, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international recognition or widespread field impact.
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 judged work of medical students
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO agreed
What was missing
- Membership · Membership requires only basic professional credentials, not outstanding achievements
- Published material · Publication venue not established as major media; broadcasts lack transcripts and dates
- Final merits · Two criteria met lack acclaim requirement; work lacks widespread lasting impact
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner judged work of medical students |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found criterion satisfied; AAO agreed |
 Membership | Not met | Membership requires only basic professional credentials, not outstanding achievements |
 Published material | Not met | Publication venue not established as major media; broadcasts lack transcripts and dates |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but abandoned on appeal |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but abandoned on appeal |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in detail |
 Final merits | Not met | Two criteria met lack acclaim requirement; work lacks widespread lasting impact |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.