EB-1APhysics and astronomyEmployerDecided April 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR232020_03B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Senior research associate in physics claims extraordinary ability through five criteria. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected awards and original contributions, finding petitioner lacked evidence of major significance or sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.
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 · Director found this criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb
- Scholarly articles · Director found this criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb
What was missing
- Awards · Grant for proposed research, not recognition of past excellence in field
- Original contributions · Work incomplete; citations alone insufficient; no evidence of major significance
- Final merits · Did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top tier status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found this criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found this criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb |
 Awards | Not met | Grant for proposed research, not recognition of past excellence in field |
 Original contributions | Not met | Work incomplete; citations alone insufficient; no evidence of major significance |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but AAO did not analyze or reach this criterion |
 Final merits | Not met | Did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top tier status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.