EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2015Sustained
Outcome: Sustained
JAN122015_03B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsClaimed, not analyzedCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsMet
Our summary
Self-petitioner, biomedical researcher, sought EB-1A classification. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions of major significance. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and expertise among top percentage in biomedical research.
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 established serving as judge or reviewer of work of others in field
- Original contributions · Expert statements described petitioner's scientific contributions as original and of major significance
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner provided evidence of authorship in professional journals
- Final merits · Evidence in aggregate established sustained national acclaim and recognized achievements at very top of biomedical field
What was missing
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner established serving as judge or reviewer of work of others in field |
 Original contributions | Met | Expert statements described petitioner's scientific contributions as original and of major significance |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner provided evidence of authorship in professional journals |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion listed in regulations but petitioner did not claim or submit evidence for this criterion |
 Final merits | Met | Evidence in aggregate established sustained national acclaim and recognized achievements at very top of biomedical field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.