EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2007Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Aug232007_01B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A medical scientist's EB-1A petition was initially approved then revoked by California Service Center. AAO upheld revocation, finding petitioner failed to satisfy three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained acclaim placing him at the top of his scientific field.
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 · Insufficient evidence of major internationally recognized award
- High salary · Petitioner failed to submit evidence of salary significantly high relative to field
- Judging · Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review
- Leading or critical role · Evidence insufficient per director determination
- Membership · Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review
- Original contributions · Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review
- Published material · Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review
- Scholarly articles · Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review
- Final merits · No sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; not significantly above others in field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Insufficient evidence of major internationally recognized award |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner failed to submit evidence of salary significantly high relative to field |
 Judging | Not met | Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Evidence insufficient per director determination |
 Membership | Not met | Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review |
 Original contributions | Not met | Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review |
 Published material | Not met | Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Counsel claimed satisfaction but evidence insufficient per director review |
 Final merits | Not met | No sustained national or international acclaim at very top level; not significantly above others in field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.