EB-1ABiotech and pharmaIndividualDecided July 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL012024_01B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.
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 determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb this finding.
- Original contributions · Director determined petitioner met this criterion as scientific accomplishments of major significance.
- Scholarly articles · Director determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb this finding.
What was missing
- Final merits · AAO found petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb this finding. |
 Original contributions | Met | Director determined petitioner met this criterion as scientific accomplishments of major significance. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director determined petitioner met this criterion; AAO did not disturb this finding. |
 Final merits | Not met | AAO found petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.