EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2016Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN142016_01B2203
JudgingMetPublished materialMetOriginal contributionsNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria (judging and published material), failing to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability demonstrating sustained national or international 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 · Petitioner submitted evidence of peer-reviewing scholarly articles.
- Published material · Petitioner authored two scholarly articles published in professional journals.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Contributions not shown to be of major significance in field; research results lack demonstrated impact on field.
- Final merits · Petitioner satisfied only two criteria; even if final merits were analyzed, record does not support extraordinary ability at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner submitted evidence of peer-reviewing scholarly articles. |
 Published material | Met | Petitioner authored two scholarly articles published in professional journals. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Contributions not shown to be of major significance in field; research results lack demonstrated impact on field. |
 Commercial success | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed in appeal. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed in appeal. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not claimed or discussed in appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Criterion not separately claimed or analyzed from published_material. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner satisfied only two criteria; even if final merits were analyzed, record does not support extraordinary ability at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.