EB-1AAgriculture and foodIndividualDecided January 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN062026_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Plant scientist in agronomy seeks EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria including judging and scholarly articles already found met by SCOPS. AAO held original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance and leading role unsupported, leaving only two criteria met when three required.
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 · SCOPS found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal.
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not establish distinguished reputation of organization or demonstrate leadership role within it.
- Original contributions · Development of five rice varieties and citations insufficient; petitioner did not demonstrate major significance or field impact.
- Final merits · Only two criteria met when three required; sustained national or international acclaim not established.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this finding on appeal. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not establish distinguished reputation of organization or demonstrate leadership role within it. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Development of five rice varieties and citations insufficient; petitioner did not demonstrate major significance or field impact. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | No major internationally recognized award claimed or established. |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not mentioned in decision or claimed by petitioner. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not mentioned in decision or claimed by petitioner. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not mentioned in decision or claimed by petitioner. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not mentioned in decision or claimed by petitioner. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not mentioned in decision or claimed by petitioner. |
 Final merits | Not met | Only two criteria met when three required; sustained national or international acclaim not established. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.