Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided February 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

FEB182026_01B2203

JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

What the AAO accepted

  • Judging · Service center found this criterion satisfied and the decision does not disturb it.
  • Leading or critical role · Service center found this criterion satisfied and the decision does not disturb it.
  • Scholarly articles · Service center found this criterion satisfied and the decision does not disturb it.

What was missing

  • Final merits · Peer review, editorial role and citations showed some recognition but not sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetService center found this criterion satisfied and the decision does not disturb it.
Leading or critical roleMetService center found this criterion satisfied and the decision does not disturb it.
Scholarly articlesMetService center found this criterion satisfied and the decision does not disturb it.
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center rejected it and the AAO went directly to final merits.
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center rejected it and the AAO went directly to final merits.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed; service center rejected it and the AAO went directly to final merits.
Final meritsNot metPeer review, editorial role and citations showed some recognition but not sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.