dermatology
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 dermatology (Other), 2025. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Membership, Original contribution, High remuneration.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot claimed
- Membershipnot counted
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot counted
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
Why these criteria usually go uncounted
The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.
Membership
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.
Original contribution
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.
High remuneration
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Membership | not counted | 7 of 92 (8%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Judging | counted | 74 of 95 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 17 of 117 (15%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 75 of 94 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| High remuneration | not counted | 14 of 48 (29%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Other appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The Director failed to adequately address the Petitioner's claims regarding membership in professional associations, original contributions of major significance, and high salary, and relied on information not in the record when evaluating original contributions. The decision needs to be re-evaluated with proper consideration of all evidence.
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 January 24, 2025 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 5, counted: 2 (Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Membership, Original contribution, High remuneration.
- How did this appeal end?
- The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Architectureappeal dismissed, 2020
- Screenwriting, Directing, and Creative Producing (Entertainment Industry)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Micro-irrigation technology/Inventorappeal dismissed, 2023
- functional genomicsappeal dismissed, 2024
- Orthopedic Surgeryappeal dismissed, 2020
- Reinsuranceappeal dismissed, 2024
- Urban and Regional Planningappeal dismissed, 2024