EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC192005_23B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Counsel-represented postdoctoral researcher in sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranked within the small percentage 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.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Fellows Award for Research Excellence and research awards do not establish significance sufficient for extraordinary ability standard
- Judging · Routine peer review does not establish sustained national or international acclaim; lacks evidence of unusual volume or editorial position
- Membership · Petitioner did not establish that society membership requires outstanding achievements of its members
- Original contributions · Claims about lithium treatment for stroke victims not demonstrated as adopted by clinics or emergency room doctors as of filing date
- Scholarly articles · Cited work was not even published as of petition filing date; cannot establish eligibility retroactively
- Final merits · Petitioner shows talent as researcher but achievements do not significantly distinguish him above almost all others in field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Fellows Award for Research Excellence and research awards do not establish significance sufficient for extraordinary ability standard |
 Judging | Not met | Routine peer review does not establish sustained national or international acclaim; lacks evidence of unusual volume or editorial position |
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner did not establish that society membership requires outstanding achievements of its members |
 Original contributions | Not met | Claims about lithium treatment for stroke victims not demonstrated as adopted by clinics or emergency room doctors as of filing date |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Cited work was not even published as of petition filing date; cannot establish eligibility retroactively |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner shows talent as researcher but achievements do not significantly distinguish him above almost all others in field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.