EB-1AChemistry and materialsEmployerDecided 2019Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN182019_04B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A senior chemist met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but needed three. The AAO rejected his claim of original contributions of major significance, finding citations and licensing agreements insufficient to show field considers his research majorly significant. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.
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 · Served as peer reviewer of manuscripts for professional journals
- Scholarly articles · Authored scholarly articles in professional publications
What was missing
- Original contributions · Publications and citations do not demonstrate major significance; licensing agreements insufficient without proof of field importance
- Final merits · Two criteria met but not three required; no sustained national or international acclaim shown
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Served as peer reviewer of manuscripts for professional journals |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Authored scholarly articles in professional publications |
 Original contributions | Not met | Publications and citations do not demonstrate major significance; licensing agreements insufficient without proof of field importance |
 Final merits | Not met | Two criteria met but not three required; no sustained national or international acclaim shown |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.