EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB142005_03B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Research scientist with NSF funding and academic appointment claiming extraordinary ability. Submitted expert witness letters and job offers alongside article publications. AAO rejected awards, judging, and contribution claims; found publication expected at postdoctoral level insufficient; ruled research assistant role not leading or critical despite employer reputation. 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 · Director determination unchallenged; petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes.
- Judging · Director determination unchallenged; petitioner failed to establish participation as judge of others' work.
- Leading or critical role · Employment as research assistant cannot meet criterion requiring leading or critical role in distinguished organization.
- Original contributions · Record does not establish petitioner's work represented groundbreaking advance in field.
- Published material · No evidence articles cited; publication of work expected at postdoctoral level does not meet criterion.
- Final merits · Evidence shows talent as research assistant but does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Director determination unchallenged; petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes. |
 Judging | Not met | Director determination unchallenged; petitioner failed to establish participation as judge of others' work. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Employment as research assistant cannot meet criterion requiring leading or critical role in distinguished organization. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Record does not establish petitioner's work represented groundbreaking advance in field. |
 Published material | Not met | No evidence articles cited; publication of work expected at postdoctoral level does not meet criterion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows talent as research assistant but does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.