Decision summary: AAO decision JAN032023_01B2203: dismissed. The AAO found the APCR fellowship did not require outstanding achievements for membership; claimed critical roles lacked objective evidence that the hospital and state ACP chapter had distinguished reputations; salary evidence did not show pay significantly above others in the field. The required three criteria were not met and final merits was not reached.

Source reviewed: This page summarizes the specific AAO source and posture recorded in the completed source-review tracker. It does not turn a nonprecedent decision into a general rule.

Scope classification from review: Source caption and analyzed filing identify an EB-1A extraordinary-ability petition or appeal/motion.. This is a source-review label, not a legal conclusion.

Decision snapshot

What the AAO decision addressed

The AAO found the APCR fellowship did not require outstanding achievements for membership; claimed critical roles lacked objective evidence that the hospital and state ACP chapter had distinguished reputations; salary evidence did not show pay significantly above others in the field. The required three criteria were not met and final merits was not reached.

Criterion-by-criterion status in this source

These labels reproduce the source-review record. “Not considered,” “not reached,” and “not coded” do not mean the criterion failed. A Director finding recited as background is not an AAO holding unless the decision says so.

Source-cited findings recorded in review

• claim: The petitioner is a physician; the Texas Service Center found no one-time award and fewer than three criteria.; pages: 1

• claim: APCR fellowship criteria included education, training, experience, publications, contributions and professional activity, but did not establish outstanding achievements as an essential membership condition.; pages: 3

• claim: Letters described hospital and ACP chapter roles, but the record did not objectively establish those organizations’ distinguished reputations.; pages: 4

• claim: The claimed salary exceeded the cited prevailing wage but was not shown to be significantly high relative to physicians in the field; appeal dismissed without formal final merits.; pages: 4; 5; 6

How this record may be used in research

Comparison scope: Eligible for individual case discussion

Page-level source trail

Use the official PDF and the cited physical page numbers to check each statement.

• PDF page 1 — Caption/date/classification/field and posture visually checked.

• PDF page 2 — Analysis page visually checked; specific evidence/findings are cited in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 3 — Analysis page visually checked; specific evidence/findings are cited in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 4 — Analysis page visually checked; specific evidence/findings are cited in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 5 — Analysis page visually checked; specific evidence/findings are cited in verified_facts and criterion_states.

• PDF page 6 — Conclusion and operative disposition visually checked; findings are cited above.

How to use this record

This is a historical, nonprecedent AAO decision about its own administrative record. It is not a prediction, success rate, or current filing instruction. Compare the issue and procedural stage before drawing an analogy. The current framework is in the USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2.

Related corpus research

• Full-corpus research index

• Membership research

• Leading or critical role research

• High salary or remuneration research

• Medicine sector research

• Final Merits research

Browse the AAO decision index · Read EB-1A evidence guides · Review source and correction methodology.

Primary source

Official USCIS AAO decision PDF for JAN032023_01B2203