Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2011Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

Apr062011_01B2203

Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A neuroscientist filing for EB-1A extraordinary ability was denied. The petitioner established only the scholarly articles criterion but failed to meet three total criteria. The AAO found deficiencies in awards, published material about the applicant, and original contributions. The final merits determination concluded the evidence was insufficient for top-tier status.

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 · Co-authored five journal articles published as of petition filing date

What was missing

  • Awards · Academic performance and scholarships are not nationally or internationally recognized awards in the field
  • Leading or critical role · Temporary postdoctoral appointments do not establish leading or critical role responsibility
  • Original contributions · Minimal citation levels insufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance
  • Published material · Articles about applicant's work, not primarily about applicant, do not meet criterion
  • Final merits · Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage standing

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
Scholarly articlesMetCo-authored five journal articles published as of petition filing date
AwardsNot metAcademic performance and scholarships are not nationally or internationally recognized awards in the field
Leading or critical roleNot metTemporary postdoctoral appointments do not establish leading or critical role responsibility
Original contributionsNot metMinimal citation levels insufficient to demonstrate original contributions of major significance
Published materialNot metArticles about applicant's work, not primarily about applicant, do not meet criterion
Final meritsNot metOverall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage standing

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.