EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2009Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Aug042009_04B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Postdoctoral researcher in life sciences claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found only two criteria possibly met, below the required three, and concluded the evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field by 2007.
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 · Chinese awards not internationally recognized; Young Investigator finalist status insufficient
- Judging · Participation in widespread peer-review process cannot meet criterion requirement
- Leading or critical role · Teaching and supervision duties do not demonstrate national or international acclaim
- Membership · Memberships in Sigma Xi and ASGT do not demonstrate national or international acclaim
- Published material · Citations are to authors' own work, not about petitioner's work itself
- Final merits · Evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-level distinction
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Chinese awards not internationally recognized; Young Investigator finalist status insufficient |
 Judging | Not met | Participation in widespread peer-review process cannot meet criterion requirement |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Teaching and supervision duties do not demonstrate national or international acclaim |
 Membership | Not met | Memberships in Sigma Xi and ASGT do not demonstrate national or international acclaim |
 Published material | Not met | Citations are to authors' own work, not about petitioner's work itself |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-level distinction |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.