EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR142005_01B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A self-petitioner researcher in life sciences sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO found she did not meet three or more regulatory criteria required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that the evidence collectively did not show she had risen to the very top of her field despite demonstrable skill and promise.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Scholarships and fellowship do not establish national or international recognition for excellence as established research scientist
- High salary · No evidence of salary comparison with other research scientists in field
- Judging · No evidence of judging experience submitted by petitioner
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner made contributions in field but never held leading or critical position
- Membership · No evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements
- Original contributions · Letters from supervisors do not show original scientific significance reflecting sustained national or international acclaim
- Published material · Published articles by petitioner do not satisfy criterion; regulation requires published material about the alien
- Scholarly articles · Majority of citations not shown to be from independent experts; includes self-citations and co-author citations
- Final merits · Petitioner highly skilled and respected but has not risen to very top of field; potential shown but not current achievement
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Scholarships and fellowship do not establish national or international recognition for excellence as established research scientist |
 High salary | Not met | No evidence of salary comparison with other research scientists in field |
 Judging | Not met | No evidence of judging experience submitted by petitioner |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner made contributions in field but never held leading or critical position |
 Membership | Not met | No evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters from supervisors do not show original scientific significance reflecting sustained national or international acclaim |
 Published material | Not met | Published articles by petitioner do not satisfy criterion; regulation requires published material about the alien |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Majority of citations not shown to be from independent experts; includes self-citations and co-author citations |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner highly skilled and respected but has not risen to very top of field; potential shown but not current achievement |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.