Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided August 2025Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG212025_01B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. 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 · SCOPS determined beneficiary satisfied judging criterion.
  • Scholarly articles · SCOPS determined beneficiary satisfied authorship of scholarly articles criterion.

What was missing

  • Leading or critical role · Evidence insufficient to establish leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputation.
  • Membership · AAPG and NAPE membership lacks evidence that organizations require outstanding achievements for membership.
  • Original contributions · Proposed sample preparation technique and technical contributions lack sufficient evidence of major significance.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetSCOPS determined beneficiary satisfied judging criterion.
Scholarly articlesMetSCOPS determined beneficiary satisfied authorship of scholarly articles criterion.
Leading or critical roleNot metEvidence insufficient to establish leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputation.
MembershipNot metAAPG and NAPE membership lacks evidence that organizations require outstanding achievements for membership.
Original contributionsNot metProposed sample preparation technique and technical contributions lack sufficient evidence of major significance.
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedOnly two criteria met; three required; final merits analysis 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.