EB-1ABiotech and pharmaIndividualDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL152013_02B2203
MembershipNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A biological engineer sought EB-1A classification asserting three or more criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding insufficient qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. Evidence offered on appeal for criteria not previously claimed was properly rejected.
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
- Membership · Petitioner failed to claim and present evidence of membership requiring outstanding achievements at initial filing and RFE response.
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria as required by regulation.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner failed to claim and present evidence of membership requiring outstanding achievements at initial filing and RFE response. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed at initial filing or RFE; evidence offered later on appeal properly excluded. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed; not analyzed in decision. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria as required by regulation. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.