EB-1ALaw, policy, social scienceIndividualDecided 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL012026_04B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetMembershipMetPublished materialMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Legal researcher and lecturer in human rights law claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met. AAO affirmed four criteria were satisfied but held applicant failed final merits analysis, finding insufficient sustained acclaim and failure to demonstrate position among very top of 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 · USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding
- Leading or critical role · USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding
- Membership · USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding
- Published material · USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding
- Scholarly articles · USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding
What was missing
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding |
 Leading or critical role | Met | USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding |
 Membership | Met | USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding |
 Published material | Met | USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding |
 Scholarly articles | Met | USCIS found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb finding |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not resolved in final merits analysis at criterion level |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does 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.