EB-1AChemistry and materialsEmployerDecided December 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC102025_02B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.
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 · Manuscript review for scientific journals satisfied the criterion, agreeing with the service center.
- Scholarly articles · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
What was missing
- Awards · Documents did not show the competition prizes were nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence.
- Original contributions · Significance of the work was not shown to be of major significance in the field.
- Published material · Articles were not about the beneficiary or his work and often lacked author information.
- Final merits · Record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Manuscript review for scientific journals satisfied the criterion, agreeing with the service center. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. |
 Awards | Not met | Documents did not show the competition prizes were nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Significance of the work was not shown to be of major significance in the field. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles were not about the beneficiary or his work and often lacked author information. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the retained text. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the very top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.