EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN022005_04B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Materials scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, published materials, judging and scholarly articles. AAO found awards criterion not met as fellowship recognized student promise not professional excellence; published material and judging insufficient in scope; and overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier sustained acclaim.
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 · Amoco Fellowship recognized promise in student field, not excellence in professional field
- Judging · Occasional peer review participation insufficient without evidence of unusual scope or editorial role
- Published material · Single article about research group insufficient; petitioner was not primary subject
- Scholarly articles · No extensive documentation showing published findings were unusually influential or acclaimed
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Amoco Fellowship recognized promise in student field, not excellence in professional field |
 Judging | Not met | Occasional peer review participation insufficient without evidence of unusual scope or editorial role |
 Published material | Not met | Single article about research group insufficient; petitioner was not primary subject |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | No extensive documentation showing published findings were unusually influential or acclaimed |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner failed to show admission based on outstanding achievement |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.