EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2016Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB242016_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A materials research engineer sought extraordinary ability classification in the sciences. Two criteria, judging and scholarly articles, were accepted. The AAO rejected original contributions and leading or critical role claims, leaving fewer than three criteria. It dismissed the appeal and noted the aggregate record also fell short on expertise.
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 participation as a judge of others' work established, and the AAO agreed.
- Scholarly articles · Authored articles in scholarly journals; the AAO agreed with the service center finding.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Role as a summer intern was not shown to be leading or critical for the organization overall.
- Original contributions · Letters and citations showed prospective or limited impact, not major significance in the field as a whole.
- Final merits · Aggregate review indicated the required level of expertise was not established, though a full determination was not required.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center found participation as a judge of others' work established, and the AAO agreed. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authored articles in scholarly journals; the AAO agreed with the service center finding. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Role as a summer intern was not shown to be leading or critical for the organization overall. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters and citations showed prospective or limited impact, not major significance in the field as a whole. |
 Final merits | Not met | Aggregate review indicated the required level of expertise was not established, though a full determination was not required. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.