Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1APhysics and astronomyIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUL192005_07B2203

AwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A postdoctoral research associate in plasma physics filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed seven criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained acclaim at the very top level.

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 · Dean's list placement does not satisfy criterion; only students compete, not field experts
  • Judging · No evidence of judging established researchers; routine duties do not show acclaim
  • Leading or critical role · Graduate student and postdoctoral roles without documentary evidence insufficient
  • Membership · No documentation of professional society eligibility criteria submitted
  • Original contributions · Recommendation letters lack corroborative evidence of major contributions to field
  • Published material · No evidence of being primary subject of professional or major media publications
  • Scholarly articles · Minimal publication record; mere publication inherent to scientific success, insufficient for acclaim
  • Final merits · Evidence shows valuable contributions but not sustained acclaim at very top of field

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metDean's list placement does not satisfy criterion; only students compete, not field experts
JudgingNot metNo evidence of judging established researchers; routine duties do not show acclaim
Leading or critical roleNot metGraduate student and postdoctoral roles without documentary evidence insufficient
MembershipNot metNo documentation of professional society eligibility criteria submitted
Original contributionsNot metRecommendation letters lack corroborative evidence of major contributions to field
Published materialNot metNo evidence of being primary subject of professional or major media publications
Scholarly articlesNot metMinimal publication record; mere publication inherent to scientific success, insufficient for acclaim
Final meritsNot metEvidence shows valuable contributions but not sustained acclaim 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.