This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the required regulatory criteria. Although two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) were met, the AAO found that original contributions of major significance and leading or critical role were not established.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a medical research scientist with expertise in microbiology and parasitology, appealed the denial of his EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. The AAO agreed with SCOPS that two criteria were met (judging and scholarly articles) but affirmed that two disputed criteria were not. On original contributions, over 1,300 citations and supportive recommendation letters were found insufficient because they failed to show broad implementation or demonstrable field-wide impact. On leading or critical role, the sole supporting letter lacked firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's claimed leadership positions. Because the petitioner did not meet three criteria, the Kazarian final merits analysis was not reached, and the appeal was dismissed.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established participation as a judge of others' work in the field and authorship of scholarly articles in parasitology and microbiology, both conceded by SCOPS and affirmed by the AAO.
What failed: Citation counts exceeding 1,300 were treated as purely quantitative and insufficient to show qualitative major significance. Recommendation letters described novelty and utility of the research but did not demonstrate broad implementation or field-wide impact. The single letter supporting a leading or critical role lacked firsthand knowledge of the specific leadership positions claimed, and the distinguished reputation of the organizations was not established.
Takeaway: For the original contributions criterion, researchers must supply evidence beyond citation counts — such as documentation of how their findings have been adopted, implemented, or transformed their field. For the leading role criterion, supporting letters must come from individuals with direct, firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's specific role within the relevant organization, not just general knowledge of the petitioner.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully established participation as a judge of others' work in the field and authorship of scholarly articles in parasitology and microbiology, both conceded by SCOPS and affirmed by the AAO.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Citation counts exceeding 1,300 were treated as purely quantitative and insufficient to show qualitative major significance
- Recommendation letters described novelty and utility of the research but did not demonstrate broad implementation or field-wide impact
- The single letter supporting a leading or critical role lacked firsthand knowledge of the specific leadership positions claimed, and the distinguished reputation of the organizations was not established.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetBoth the Director and the AAO agreed this criterion was satisfied.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metPetitioner showed originality of research and over 1,300 citations across 25 countries, but failed to demonstrate that contributions had broad, demonstrable impact of major significance in parasitology or microbiology. Citation count alone was deemed insufficient qualitative evidence.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetBoth the Director and the AAO agreed this criterion was satisfied.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metPetitioner claimed leadership roles as founding director of a molecular parasitology lab and director of a national/international diagnostic reference unit, but the sole supporting recommendation letter lacked firsthand personal knowledge of the claimed leadership roles, and the record did not establish the distinguished reputation of the organizations.
Participation as a judge of others' work in the field (criterion iv met)
Authorship of scholarly articles in parasitology and microbiology (criterion vi met)
Recommendation letters acknowledging the novelty and utility of the petitioner's research
Over 1,300 citations across 25 countries — deemed quantitative and insufficient to show qualitative major significance
Recommendation letters praising research contributions — found to describe novelty and utility but not broad impact or implementation consistent with major significance
Patent listing petitioner as inventor — acknowledged but not sufficient to show major significance
Recommendation letter supporting leading/critical role — author lacked firsthand personal knowledge of petitioner's claimed leadership roles at the specific institutions
Membership information for scientific societies — did not show a leading or critical role or distinguished organizational reputation
Argument that other petitioners with fewer citations received approval — rejected as each case must be decided on its own facts
Petitioner incorrectly argued that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo precludes a final merits determination, which the AAO found moot because the petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold.
Completed
I-140 filed
Medical research scientist specializing in microbiology and parasitology, with focus on diagnosing and treating human parasitic diseases
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-04-17
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the required regulatory criteria. Although two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) were met, the AAO found that original contributions of major significance and leading or critical role were not established.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee