EB-1AChemistry and materialsEmployerDecided 2009Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Dec042009_04B2203
JudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Colloid science researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review and published articles. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review routine in the field and publications insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim or significant impact, failing to establish position among the very top.
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
- Judging · Peer review for scientific journals is routine and does not distinguish petitioner as serving elite editorial role or receiving independent requests from substantial journals.
- Original contributions · Expert letters and publications do not demonstrate impact or significant contributions at very top level; evidence does not set petitioner apart from field.
- Final merits · Colloid science researcher shows talent but evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | Peer review for scientific journals is routine and does not distinguish petitioner as serving elite editorial role or receiving independent requests from substantial journals. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Expert letters and publications do not demonstrate impact or significant contributions at very top level; evidence does not set petitioner apart from field. |
 Final merits | Not met | Colloid science researcher shows talent but evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at very top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.