EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN182005_01B2203
Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A research scientist in chemistry or materials science sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several criteria including awards, membership, judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding fellowships, society membership and routine peer review insufficient, and the overall record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
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
- Scholarly articles · Publication history and citations were accepted as consistent with national acclaim under the scholarly articles criterion.
What was missing
- Awards · Fellowships and grants for students or postdocs are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field.
- Judging · Routine peer review does not show acclaim or place the petitioner among the very top of the field.
- Membership · Society membership was not shown to require outstanding achievement; requirements were ordinary such as degree and dues.
- Final merits · Evidence shows talent as a researcher but does not place the petitioner significantly above almost all others in the field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Publication history and citations were accepted as consistent with national acclaim under the scholarly articles criterion. |
 Awards | Not met | Fellowships and grants for students or postdocs are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the field. |
 Judging | Not met | Routine peer review does not show acclaim or place the petitioner among the very top of the field. |
 Membership | Not met | Society membership was not shown to require outstanding achievement; requirements were ordinary such as degree and dues. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the available text; the decision's discussion of this criterion is not shown. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the condensed text; the director did not specifically address it and the decision reframes citations under another criterion. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows talent as a researcher but does not place the petitioner significantly above almost all others in the field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.