EB-1APhysics and astronomyEmployerDecided 2019Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN182019_03B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An applied physicist employed as an engineer sought EB-1A classification. He met two initial criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to establish a third. The AAO dismissed the appeal because his original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and his accomplishments do not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.
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 participated as judge
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly articles
What was missing
- Original contributions · Insufficient evidence of major significance; low citation count and lack of demonstrated field impact
- Final merits · Record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner participated as judge |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored scholarly articles |
 Original contributions | Not met | Insufficient evidence of major significance; low citation count and lack of demonstrated field impact |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.