EB-1APhysics and astronomyEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC022005_10B2203
Scholarly articlesMetJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A physicist counsel-represented beneficiary claimed EB-1A based on publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the scholarly articles criterion met and no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field.
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 · Petitioner established this criterion through publication record
What was missing
- Judging · Service on two paper review committees over four years lacks evidence of unusual prominence or editorial distinction
- Original contributions · Working in field pioneered by Nobel Laureates does not establish petitioner's own sustained national or international acclaim
- Published material · Citations alone do not constitute published material about the petitioner in professional publications
- Final merits · Postdoctoral researcher with talent but not persuasively at very top of field or achieving sustained international acclaim
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner established this criterion through publication record |
 Judging | Not met | Service on two paper review committees over four years lacks evidence of unusual prominence or editorial distinction |
 Original contributions | Not met | Working in field pioneered by Nobel Laureates does not establish petitioner's own sustained national or international acclaim |
 Published material | Not met | Citations alone do not constitute published material about the petitioner in professional publications |
 Final merits | Not met | Postdoctoral researcher with talent but not persuasively at very top of field or achieving sustained international acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.