EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided August 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG222025_03B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetPublished materialMetAwardsNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.
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 · Service center finding that petitioner judged work of others in same field not disturbed on appeal
- Leading or critical role · AAO found record supports critical role claim at beamline facility after withdrawing service center determination
- Published material · Service center finding that petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications not disturbed
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner did not claim or establish receipt of major internationally recognized award
- Final merits · Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top small percentage
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center finding that petitioner judged work of others in same field not disturbed on appeal |
 Leading or critical role | Met | AAO found record supports critical role claim at beamline facility after withdrawing service center determination |
 Published material | Met | Service center finding that petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications not disturbed |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not claim or establish receipt of major internationally recognized award |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by AAO on appeal |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed by AAO on appeal |
 Final merits | Not met | Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top small percentage |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.