Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AAgriculture and foodIndividualDecided August 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG172026_01B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

Ph.D. student and research assistant in agriculture water management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions, falling short of three-criterion threshold. AAO found record does not establish acclaim required; 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

  • Judging · AAO affirmed USCIS finding that petitioner satisfied criterion through peer review service for scientific journals.
  • Scholarly articles · AAO affirmed USCIS finding that petitioner satisfied criterion through authorship of scholarly articles.

What was missing

  • Awards · No evidence of major internationally recognized award; petitioner ineligible without one-time achievement.
  • Original contributions · While petitioner made original contributions to water management and sustainable agriculture, evidence did not show major significance or widespread field impact.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetAAO affirmed USCIS finding that petitioner satisfied criterion through peer review service for scientific journals.
Scholarly articlesMetAAO affirmed USCIS finding that petitioner satisfied criterion through authorship of scholarly articles.
AwardsNot metNo evidence of major internationally recognized award; petitioner ineligible without one-time achievement.
Original contributionsNot metWhile petitioner made original contributions to water management and sustainable agriculture, evidence did not show major significance or widespread field impact.
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedDid not satisfy threshold initial evidence requirements; final merits determination reserved.

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.