EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2018Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR182018_02B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A medical technology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed two more. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked significance and leading role unproven. Only three criteria met but final merits analysis concluded no extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Participated as judge of work of others in field
- Scholarly articles · Authored three peer-reviewed papers presented at scientific conferences in proceedings
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Letter did not establish leading role, team size, hierarchy position, or critical impact on organization
- Original contributions · Made original contributions but failed to establish major significance to field
- Final merits · Met only two criteria initially, third criterion reconsidered, but final merits finding adverse overall
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Participated as judge of work of others in field |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authored three peer-reviewed papers presented at scientific conferences in proceedings |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Letter did not establish leading role, team size, hierarchy position, or critical impact on organization |
 Original contributions | Not met | Made original contributions but failed to establish major significance to field |
 Final merits | Not met | Met only two criteria initially, third criterion reconsidered, but final merits finding adverse overall |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.