EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC192005_06B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria but the AAO found none met. Awards lacked significance, membership criteria not satisfied, citations insufficient, peer review routine, original contributions undemonstrated, and scholarship evidence post-dated filing. Appeal dismissed.
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 · Significance of awards not established; 2002 FARE and research awards insufficient.
- Judging · Peer review is routine; evidence did not set petitioner apart significantly.
- Membership · Petitioner did not establish that society requires outstanding achievements.
- Original contributions · No demonstration that clinical use of lithium for stroke treatment established.
- Published material · Citation record not consistent with national or international acclaim.
- Scholarly articles · Evidence did not establish eligibility as of filing date; work cited not yet published.
- Final merits · Evidence shows talent but insufficient to establish sustained acclaim at field top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Significance of awards not established; 2002 FARE and research awards insufficient. |
 Judging | Not met | Peer review is routine; evidence did not set petitioner apart significantly. |
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner did not establish that society requires outstanding achievements. |
 Original contributions | Not met | No demonstration that clinical use of lithium for stroke treatment established. |
 Published material | Not met | Citation record not consistent with national or international acclaim. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Evidence did not establish eligibility as of filing date; work cited not yet published. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows talent but insufficient to establish sustained acclaim at field top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.