EB-1AChemistry and materialsEmployerDecided 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG252020_04B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.
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 · Reviewed papers for journals; criterion met.
- Scholarly articles · Authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Publications in high-impact journals, cover features, and citations do not establish major significance without evidence of field impact or influence.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Reviewed papers for journals; criterion met. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authored scholarly articles in professional publications. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Publications in high-impact journals, cover features, and citations do not establish major significance without evidence of field impact or influence. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Met only two of three required criteria; final merits not reached. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.