Cardiac Physiology
AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa
Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova
This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Cardiac Physiology (Other), 2024. The appeal was appeal sustained, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner met the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the appeal was sustained - a rare outcome in the appeals base. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 were counted. The petitioner also passed the final-merits totality assessment - both the criteria and the overall extraordinary-ability standard.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributioncounted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
The Other field in the database: 219 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 3 sustained, 40 remanded, 176 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published material about you | counted | 43 of 126 (34%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 74 of 95 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | counted | 17 of 117 (15%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 75 of 94 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Other appeals.
How to read this case
No claimed criterion here is marked "not counted", and the petitioner passed the final-merits totality assessment - one of the rare winning outcomes in the base (AAO appeals are sustained in roughly 3% of cases). Study which criteria were counted and compare them with your own evidence set.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Director initially found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, and did not adequately consider the impact of the petitioner's research, particularly regarding COVID-19 treatment and cardiac devices, as demonstrated by citations, expert letters, and media coverage.
The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.
Full AAO decision of August 16, 2024 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 4, counted: 4 (Published material about you, Judging, Original contribution, Scholarly authorship).
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.