Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
case remandedScience20204 criteria counted

Physiatrist Specialist (Medicine)

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 Physiatrist Specialist (Medicine) (Science), 2020. 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, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.

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. 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

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:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Published material about youcounted35 of 89 (39%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Judgingcounted105 of 117 (90%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorshipcounted121 of 127 (95%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Leading rolecounted19 of 54 (35%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)

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 his achievements have been recognized in the field, demonstrating that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field. The initial denial was based on this lack of demonstration of extraordinary ability despite meeting the minimum criteria.

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 September 24, 2020 (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, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).
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?
Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.

Related

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

This is an anonymized public decision of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), shown for reference. Not legal advice and not a guarantee of your own outcome; every case is decided on its own facts.