This appeal was fully successful
The AAO sustained the appeal after a federal district court remanded the matter, finding the petitioner met at least four evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through a final merits determination.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a biophysicist and founder/CEO working in biophysics and biomedicine, had his EB-1A petition denied by the Nebraska Service Center and his appeal dismissed by the AAO. He then sued in federal district court, which granted summary judgment in his favor and remanded to the AAO, finding that the petitioner had satisfied four evidentiary criteria (awards, published materials, original contributions, and scholarly articles). On remand, the AAO conducted a final merits determination and found that the petitioner's extensive publication record with thousands of citations, expert letters attesting to the significance of his patents, significant venture capital funding secured based on his work, and FDA-approved commercialized technology collectively demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim at the very top of the field.
What worked: The petitioner's strong publication record (68 articles, nearly 3,000 citations) was persuasive at the final merits stage. Expert letters that specifically described how the petitioner's patented work achieved firsts in the field and was recognized at major research agencies in the U.S. and EU carried significant weight. Evidence of substantial venture capital investment and FDA market approval tied directly to the petitioner's inventions helped demonstrate real-world impact and acclaim.
What failed: The petitioner's attempt to use comparable evidence in lieu of standard criteria was rejected at both the AAO level and by the court. The leading or critical role criterion was not satisfied. The high salary criterion was waived by the petitioner's failure to contest it on appeal.
Takeaway: When an AAO dismissal is based on incorrect findings at step one of Kazarian, federal court review can be an effective remedy—as shown here where the court reversed three criteria findings and ordered a final merits determination. Building a record with concrete, specific evidence of real-world impact (citations, commercial outcomes, expert letters with detailed examples) is critical to succeeding at the final merits stage.
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's strong publication record (68 articles, nearly 3,000 citations) was persuasive at the final merits stage
- Expert letters that specifically described how the petitioner's patented work achieved firsts in the field and was recognized at major research agencies in the U.S
- and EU carried significant weight
- Evidence of substantial venture capital investment and FDA market approval tied directly to the petitioner's inventions helped demonstrate real-world impact and acclaim.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner's attempt to use comparable evidence in lieu of standard criteria was rejected at both the AAO level and by the court
- The leading or critical role criterion was not satisfied
- The high salary criterion was waived by the petitioner's failure to contest it on appeal.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Reversed in their favorCourt found AAO erred in prior decision; petitioner submitted sufficient evidence of awards.
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorCourt found AAO erred; petitioner submitted sufficient published materials about him in professional publications in the field.
Original contributions of major significance
Reversed in their favorCourt found AAO erred; petitioner's patents and research constituted original contributions of major significance.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Reversed in their favorCourt analyzed and found petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion; AAO had reserved judgment previously.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metCourt analyzed and found petitioner did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner did not contest Director's denial of this criterion on appeal; court declined to consider it.
Completed
I-140 filed
Biophysicist, biomedical researcher, and founder/CEO of a biophysics/biomedicine technology company
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2021-08-27
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO sustained the appeal after a federal district court remanded the matter, finding the petitioner met at least four evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim through a final merits determination.