EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB142005_01B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Research scientist claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Counsel did not contest director findings on awards and judging. AAO found scholarly articles lacked citation evidence and research role was not distinguished enough. Overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability classification.
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 · Director determination not contested by counsel; awards criterion not established.
- Judging · Counsel did not contest director's determination on judging criterion.
- Leading or critical role · Research assistant role does not qualify as distinguished leading or critical position.
- Scholarly articles · No evidence that articles were cited; publication alone insufficient for this criterion.
- Final merits · Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at top level.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Director determination not contested by counsel; awards criterion not established. |
 Judging | Not met | Counsel did not contest director's determination on judging criterion. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Research assistant role does not qualify as distinguished leading or critical position. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | No evidence that articles were cited; publication alone insufficient for this criterion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at top level. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.