EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided January 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN222026_04B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.
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 · SCOPS determination affirmed; petitioner participated as judge of work of others in same or allied field.
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS determination affirmed; petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications or major media.
What was missing
- Awards · Awards for best oral presentation and research award insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
- High salary · No comparative data provided to show salary higher than others in the field.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputation; no evidence of organization's distinguished nature.
- Published material · Published material about petitioner did not appear in professional or major trade publications with elevated circulation.
- Final merits · Petitioner met only two criteria; does not satisfy three-criterion threshold; insufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determination affirmed; petitioner participated as judge of work of others in same or allied field. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS determination affirmed; petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications or major media. |
 Awards | Not met | Awards for best oral presentation and research award insufficient to establish nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. |
 High salary | Not met | No comparative data provided to show salary higher than others in the field. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate leading or critical role in organizations with distinguished reputation; no evidence of organization's distinguished nature. |
 Published material | Not met | Published material about petitioner did not appear in professional or major trade publications with elevated circulation. |
 Exhibitions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived eligibility under this criterion by not raising it on appeal. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived eligibility under this criterion by not raising it on appeal. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner met only two criteria; does not satisfy three-criterion threshold; insufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.