EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2013Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL152013_03B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsNot met
Our summary
A scientist in nanotechnology sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met judging criterion but failed original contributions requirement. AAO found expert letters merely repeated petitioner's claimed achievements without demonstrating significant field impact or contributions of major significance as of priority date, dismissing appeal for insufficient 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 · Director determined petitioner met requirements; sufficient evidence of judging participation submitted
What was missing
- Original contributions · Expert letters lacking specificity on how petitioner made significant impact; contributions of major significance not established as of priority date
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director determined petitioner met requirements; sufficient evidence of judging participation submitted |
 Original contributions | Not met | Expert letters lacking specificity on how petitioner made significant impact; contributions of major significance not established as of priority date |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.