EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN022005_07B2203
JudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A researcher claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. Petitioner claimed membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly article criteria. AAO found memberships require only basic credentials, no peer review evidence, research work not established as major contribution, and witness letters insufficient to show sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.
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
- Judging · No evidence submitted of peer review service for ARS research project plans or journals with similar standards.
- Membership · ACS and ASM memberships require only basic degrees and experience, not outstanding achievements as required by regulation.
- Original contributions · Listing research projects and work does not establish original scientific contributions of major significance recognized nationally or internationally.
- Scholarly articles · Witness letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; reputation limited to collaborators and not published materials about petitioner.
- Final merits · No major award or three criteria met; petitioner has not achieved sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | No evidence submitted of peer review service for ARS research project plans or journals with similar standards. |
 Membership | Not met | ACS and ASM memberships require only basic degrees and experience, not outstanding achievements as required by regulation. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Listing research projects and work does not establish original scientific contributions of major significance recognized nationally or internationally. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Witness letters do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; reputation limited to collaborators and not published materials about petitioner. |
 Final merits | Not met | No major award or three criteria met; petitioner has not achieved 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.