Neurotoxicology
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 Neurotoxicology (Science), 2022. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet 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 case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 4 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 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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) |
| Original contribution | counted | 33 of 123 (27%) | 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 record of this case has no criterion marked "not counted", yet it never reached the final-merits stage. That happens when the dispute was resolved another way - for example, the case was sent back to the officer - and the AAO did not record a verdict on each criterion. Use the decision excerpt and the similar cases below.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The initial denial was based on a finding that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the ten criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), specifically regarding original contributions. The AAO found the petitioner *did* meet the criteria for judging the work of others, authorship of scholarly articles, and original contributions, and remanded the case for a final merits determination.
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 July 29, 2022 (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 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.