Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2007Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

Apr202007_03B2203

AwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Self-petitioner plant physiologist sought EB-1A classification based on provincial award, articles, and researcher position in China. AAO found petitioner failed to meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim or evidence of continuing work in United States expertise.

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 · Provincial award lacked evidence of significance, recipient numbers, or competitive pool; not national or international recognition.
  • Leading or critical role · Vice-director appointment letter actually documented researcher position, not vice-director role claimed.
  • Original contributions · No evidence of contributions of major significance to field.
  • Scholarly articles · Articles not published in major or professional trade publications or major media.
  • Final merits · No sustained acclaim at filing; any prior notoriety in China not sustained two years later; no evidence of continuation plans in United States.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metProvincial award lacked evidence of significance, recipient numbers, or competitive pool; not national or international recognition.
Leading or critical roleNot metVice-director appointment letter actually documented researcher position, not vice-director role claimed.
Original contributionsNot metNo evidence of contributions of major significance to field.
Scholarly articlesNot metArticles not published in major or professional trade publications or major media.
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as distinct criterion in decision.
Final meritsNot metNo sustained acclaim at filing; any prior notoriety in China not sustained two years later; no evidence of continuation plans in United States.

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.