EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided April 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR232020_07B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.
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 criterion met; AAO affirmed
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion met; AAO affirmed
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Claimed but not substantively analyzed as meeting criterion requirements
- Original contributions · Employer statements do not establish major significance; trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lack evidence of field-wide impact
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status in field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found criterion met; AAO affirmed |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found criterion met; AAO affirmed |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Claimed but not substantively analyzed as meeting criterion requirements |
 Original contributions | Not met | Employer statements do not establish major significance; trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lack evidence of field-wide impact |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status in field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.