EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG102005_03B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metExhibitionsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A research scientist claims extraordinary ability via awards, citations, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and conference presentations. The AAO found only the judging criterion met but concluded the overall evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the field's very top.
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 · Peer review for Water Resources Research and service on National Science Foundation panel established.
What was missing
- Awards · Academic awards and scholarships limited to students, not established scientists.
- Exhibitions · Conference presentations inherent to successful employment as research scientist; do not demonstrate sustained acclaim.
- Original contributions · Recommendation letters alone insufficient; do not demonstrate major significance in field beyond limited direct contacts.
- Published material · Citations of alien's work by others rarely meet criterion as citing articles focus on authors' own research.
- Scholarly articles · Minimal publication and citation record between 1993 and 2001 does not reflect sustained acclaim.
- Final merits · Accomplished scientist but evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Peer review for Water Resources Research and service on National Science Foundation panel established. |
 Awards | Not met | Academic awards and scholarships limited to students, not established scientists. |
 Exhibitions | Not met | Conference presentations inherent to successful employment as research scientist; do not demonstrate sustained acclaim. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Recommendation letters alone insufficient; do not demonstrate major significance in field beyond limited direct contacts. |
 Published material | Not met | Citations of alien's work by others rarely meet criterion as citing articles focus on authors' own research. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Minimal publication and citation record between 1993 and 2001 does not reflect sustained acclaim. |
 Final merits | Not met | Accomplished scientist but evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.