EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided April 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR222026_02B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A neuroscience postdoctoral researcher and staff research associate claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO confirmed two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. However, the original contributions criterion failed due to insufficient citations and no evidence of widespread field impact, and the critical role criterion was not properly addressed. Only two criteria met; 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 · Service as peer reviewer and editor for scientific journals established.
- Scholarly articles · Authorship of articles in professional publications demonstrated.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Claimed but AAO found staff research associate role not distinguished or critical.
- Original contributions · Citation numbers insufficient; no evidence of widespread commentary or impact.
- Final merits · Only two criteria met; sustained acclaim and top tier status not demonstrated.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service as peer reviewer and editor for scientific journals established. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authorship of articles in professional publications demonstrated. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Claimed but AAO found staff research associate role not distinguished or critical. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citation numbers insufficient; no evidence of widespread commentary or impact. |
 Final merits | Not met | Only two criteria met; sustained acclaim and top tier status not demonstrated. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.