Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ABiotech and pharmaIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUL152005_09B2203

AwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Scientist in cancer research self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met zero of criteria analyzed; while work was valuable, record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing him at field's top.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.

What was missing

  • Awards · Fellowships are inherent to scientific activity and do not reflect nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
  • Membership · No evidence that AAPS, AIBS, or AAAS membership requires outstanding achievement as prerequisite
  • Original contributions · Letters from colleagues carry less weight than independent evidence; record does not establish major contributions to field
  • Scholarly articles · Three published articles insufficient; frequent publication is inherent to established scientist and does not indicate sustained acclaim
  • Final merits · Failed to meet at least three criteria; made valuable contributions but not at very top of field

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metFellowships are inherent to scientific activity and do not reflect nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
MembershipNot metNo evidence that AAPS, AIBS, or AAAS membership requires outstanding achievement as prerequisite
Original contributionsNot metLetters from colleagues carry less weight than independent evidence; record does not establish major contributions to field
Scholarly articlesNot metThree published articles insufficient; frequent publication is inherent to established scientist and does not indicate sustained acclaim
Final meritsNot metFailed to meet at least three criteria; made valuable contributions but not at very top of field

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.