EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided January 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN102023_04B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Oil industry scientist self-petitioner with Ph.D. claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected original contributions and high salary claims. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.
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 · AAO agreed with director's favorable determination on this criterion
- Scholarly articles · AAO agreed with director's favorable determination on this criterion
What was missing
- High salary · Salary compared to general professional activities, not to petroleum scientists in field; insufficient comparative evidence
- Original contributions · While research was novel, petitioner did not establish technologies had widely impacted field at level of major significance
- Final merits · Only two criteria met; three required; record does not support sustained national or international acclaim
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | AAO agreed with director's favorable determination on this criterion |
 Scholarly articles | Met | AAO agreed with director's favorable determination on this criterion |
 High salary | Not met | Salary compared to general professional activities, not to petroleum scientists in field; insufficient comparative evidence |
 Original contributions | Not met | While research was novel, petitioner did not establish technologies had widely impacted field at level of major significance |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not contested on appeal; deemed waived |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not contested on appeal; deemed waived |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not contested on appeal; deemed waived |
 Final merits | Not met | Only two criteria met; three required; record does not support sustained national or international acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.