EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR142005_02B2203
AwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability in life sciences via EB-1A. Claimed award, articles, and recommendations. AAO affirmed that evidence showed skilled colleague but not sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.
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 · 2002 Gallo Award shows past potential but not current national or international recognition as established scientist.
- Leading or critical role · Position at Cancer Institute lacks independent evidence of distinguished laboratory or institute reputation.
- Membership · Employment-based membership lacks evidence of outstanding achievement requirement for association.
- Original contributions · Nine recommendation letters insufficient; speak to potential rather than sustained scientific contributions.
- Published material · Mere citation insufficient; no evidence articles actually about the petitioner.
- Scholarly articles · Six published articles at time of filing do not reflect sustained national or international acclaim.
- Final merits · Highly skilled and respected researcher but evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at field top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | 2002 Gallo Award shows past potential but not current national or international recognition as established scientist. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Position at Cancer Institute lacks independent evidence of distinguished laboratory or institute reputation. |
 Membership | Not met | Employment-based membership lacks evidence of outstanding achievement requirement for association. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Nine recommendation letters insufficient; speak to potential rather than sustained scientific contributions. |
 Published material | Not met | Mere citation insufficient; no evidence articles actually about the petitioner. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Six published articles at time of filing do not reflect sustained national or international acclaim. |
 Final merits | Not met | Highly skilled and respected researcher but evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at field top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.