Outcome: Dismissed
AUG312005_11B2203
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
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Alleged awards lacked sufficient national or international stature or documentation of selection criteria | |
| Not met | Supervising research project staff does not constitute judging; occasional peer review insufficient for national acclaim | |
| Not met | Membership requirements did not demonstrate outstanding achievement; based on employment or education only | |
| Not met | Published material criterion requires articles primarily about petitioner in major publications; citations addressed separately | |
| Not met | Petitioner 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.
