EB-1APhysics and astronomyIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR282005_07B2203
Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Nuclear physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through multiple criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only scholarly articles criterion. Awards, membership, judging, contributions, and leading role all failed. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level. 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
- Scholarly articles · Citations from research adequately satisfy this criterion; evidence sufficient despite majority from collaborators
What was missing
- Awards · No evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in physics
- Judging · Overseeing peer review for own publication does not constitute judging work of others
- Leading or critical role · Evidence falls short of establishing leading role for distinguished organization with sustained acclaim
- Membership · Membership requirements based on employment, education, or dues do not constitute outstanding achievements
- Original contributions · Contributions lack documentation of unusual influence or acclaim throughout greater field
- Final merits · Petitioner meets only one of ten criteria; evidence does not demonstrate top-level field status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Citations from research adequately satisfy this criterion; evidence sufficient despite majority from collaborators |
 Awards | Not met | No evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in physics |
 Judging | Not met | Overseeing peer review for own publication does not constitute judging work of others |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Evidence falls short of establishing leading role for distinguished organization with sustained acclaim |
 Membership | Not met | Membership requirements based on employment, education, or dues do not constitute outstanding achievements |
 Original contributions | Not met | Contributions lack documentation of unusual influence or acclaim throughout greater field |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner meets only one of ten criteria; evidence does not demonstrate top-level field status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.