Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2014Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG062014_01B2203

AwardsNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A cancer research scientist sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed denial, finding the petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied none. Fellowship and grant funding were insufficient to meet the awards criterion, and the petitioner failed to submit three types of qualifying evidence required for eligibility.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.

What was missing

  • Awards · Fellowship and grant funding do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
  • Final merits · Petitioner failed to satisfy three-criteria minimum; does not demonstrate small percentage at top of field.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metFellowship and grant funding do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards.
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedCriterion claimed in regulations but not discussed in decision.
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedCriterion claimed in regulations but not discussed in decision.
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed beyond awards criterion discussion.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedCriterion claimed in regulations but not discussed in decision.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedCriterion claimed in regulations but not discussed in decision.
Scholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedCriterion claimed in regulations but not discussed in decision.
Final meritsNot metPetitioner failed to satisfy three-criteria minimum; does not demonstrate small percentage at top of field.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.