Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided December 2025Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

DEC102025_01B2203

JudgingMetPublished materialMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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

  • Judging · Peer review work and dissertation committee activities qualify as judging
  • Published material · SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement
  • Scholarly articles · SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement

What was missing

  • Awards · No major internationally recognized award received
  • Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; talented but lacks evidence of small percentage at very top

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetPeer review work and dissertation committee activities qualify as judging
Published materialMetSCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement
Scholarly articlesMetSCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement
AwardsNot metNo major internationally recognized award received
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner did not claim this criterion
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner did not claim this criterion
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner did not claim this criterion
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner did not claim this criterion
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPetitioner did not claim this criterion
Final meritsNot metRecord does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; talented but lacks evidence of small percentage at very top

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.