Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG312005_11B2203

AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Scientist in chemical senses research claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published material, and judging roles. AAO rejected each criterion: awards lacked documentation, membership did not require outstanding achievement, published materials criterion unmet, and supervising research does not constitute judging. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria required for EB-1A.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.

What was missing

  • Awards · Alleged awards lacked sufficient national or international stature or documentation of selection criteria
  • Judging · Supervising research project staff does not constitute judging; occasional peer review insufficient for national acclaim
  • Membership · Membership requirements did not demonstrate outstanding achievement; based on employment or education only
  • Published material · Published material criterion requires articles primarily about petitioner in major publications; citations addressed separately
  • Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metAlleged awards lacked sufficient national or international stature or documentation of selection criteria
JudgingNot metSupervising research project staff does not constitute judging; occasional peer review insufficient for national acclaim
MembershipNot metMembership requirements did not demonstrate outstanding achievement; based on employment or education only
Published materialNot metPublished material criterion requires articles primarily about petitioner in major publications; citations addressed separately
Final meritsNot metPetitioner failed to meet at least three criteria; evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim

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.