Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1APhysics and astronomyIndividualDecided August 2025Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG262025_01B2203

Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

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

  • Scholarly articles · Petitioner established authoring scholarly articles in professional and major trade publications

What was missing

  • Awards · Certificates of recognition lack clear criteria: number of candidates, geographic scope, and winners
  • High salary · Petitioner did not address insufficiencies; merely reasserted claim without corroboration
  • Judging · Thesis jury member role reviewed bachelor's candidates, not peers in same or allied field
  • Membership · No supporting documentation of ranking or association membership criteria judged by recognized experts
  • Published material · Articles either lack mention of her work or were co-authored; uncorroborated social media claims insufficient

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
Scholarly articlesMetPetitioner established authoring scholarly articles in professional and major trade publications
AwardsNot metCertificates of recognition lack clear criteria: number of candidates, geographic scope, and winners
High salaryNot metPetitioner did not address insufficiencies; merely reasserted claim without corroboration
JudgingNot metThesis jury member role reviewed bachelor's candidates, not peers in same or allied field
MembershipNot metNo supporting documentation of ranking or association membership criteria judged by recognized experts
Published materialNot metArticles either lack mention of her work or were co-authored; uncorroborated social media claims insufficient
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedOnly one criterion clearly met; three minimum required so final merits not analyzed

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.