neuroscience
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 neuroscience (Science), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 4 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 were counted. The criteria were enough to reach final merits, but on the totality of the evidence the petitioner fell short of the extraordinary-ability standard - 3+ criteria alone do not guarantee approval.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
The Science field in the database: 155 appeals
Outcomes in this field: 7 sustained, 30 remanded, 118 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | counted | 4 of 54 (7%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | counted | 35 of 89 (39%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 105 of 117 (90%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 121 of 127 (95%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all Science appeals.
How to read this case
The formal gate was passed: no claimed criterion is marked "not counted", and the case reached the final-merits totality assessment. That is exactly where it was lost: at this stage the officer looks not at the number of criteria but at whether the evidence as a whole shows sustained national or international acclaim. Across the appeals base, 45% of cases are lost at final merits.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage of researchers at the top of his field. The evidence regarding impact factors and citations was insufficient to establish extraordinary ability.
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 April 15, 2021 (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 (Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship).
- How did this appeal end?
- The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.