EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided January 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN222020_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Pharmacochemistry research specialist self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO confirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but petitioner needed three total. Original contributions claim rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact. Final merits finding rejected for insufficient 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 · Director and AAO agreed petitioner met judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)
- Scholarly articles · Director and AAO agreed petitioner met authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)
What was missing
- Original contributions · Research showed novelty but not major significance; no evidence of wide use or recognized impact on field
- Final merits · Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director and AAO agreed petitioner met judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director and AAO agreed petitioner met authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) |
 Original contributions | Not met | Research showed novelty but not major significance; no evidence of wide use or recognized impact on field |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or place among small percentage at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.