EB-1ABiotech and pharmaEmployerDecided January 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN292020_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Pharmaceutical company petitioner sought to classify beneficiary as having extraordinary ability in their field. Although beneficiary met three initial criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and critical role—the AAO found she did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top of her field based on totality of evidence.
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 · Beneficiary served as peer reviewer for professional journal manuscripts.
- Leading or critical role · Beneficiary held leading or critical role with documented influence on organizational decision-making.
- Scholarly articles · Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals.
What was missing
- Final merits · Beneficiary does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Beneficiary served as peer reviewer for professional journal manuscripts. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Beneficiary held leading or critical role with documented influence on organizational decision-making. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Beneficiary authored scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. |
 Final merits | Not met | Beneficiary does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.