EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2016Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN042016_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Chemist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in science. Petitioner claimed six criteria but satisfied only two: judging and scholarly articles. The AAO held that awards, membership, published material, and original contributions were not met, dismissing appeal for failure to meet three-criterion threshold.
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 · Petitioner demonstrated participation as judge of work in same field.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in field.
What was missing
- Awards · Student poster presentation award lacked visibility and prestige of national or international recognition.
- Membership · Membership organizations do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
- Original contributions · Importance to employer does not establish major significance to field as a whole.
- Published material · References to research papers in other articles do not constitute published material about petitioner.
- Final merits · Aggregate review does not support finding that petitioner achieved required level of expertise.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner demonstrated participation as judge of work in same field. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in field. |
 Awards | Not met | Student poster presentation award lacked visibility and prestige of national or international recognition. |
 Membership | Not met | Membership organizations do not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Importance to employer does not establish major significance to field as a whole. |
 Published material | Not met | References to research papers in other articles do not constitute published material about petitioner. |
 Final merits | Not met | Aggregate review does not support finding that petitioner achieved required level of expertise. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.