EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL212005_07B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A research scientist studying bacterial disease mechanisms filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. He claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, and original contributions. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet three criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required.
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 · Postdoctoral scholarship does not indicate standing at very top of field
- Judging · Supervising graduate and junior postdoctoral fellows insufficient; not judging established researchers
- Membership · Membership based on employment or activity, not outstanding achievement as admission requirement
- Original contributions · Recommendation letters lack sufficient independent corroboration of major significance
- Published material · No evidence petitioner was primary subject of professional or major media publications
- Scholarly articles · Citations of work insufficient without substantive discussion of petitioner's contributions
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish petitioner within small percentage at very top of field nationally or internationally
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Postdoctoral scholarship does not indicate standing at very top of field |
 Judging | Not met | Supervising graduate and junior postdoctoral fellows insufficient; not judging established researchers |
 Membership | Not met | Membership based on employment or activity, not outstanding achievement as admission requirement |
 Original contributions | Not met | Recommendation letters lack sufficient independent corroboration of major significance |
 Published material | Not met | No evidence petitioner was primary subject of professional or major media publications |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Citations of work insufficient without substantive discussion of petitioner's contributions |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not establish petitioner within small percentage at very top of field nationally or internationally |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.