EB-1AMathematics and statisticsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN102005_08B2203
JudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Mathematician sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO rejected all criteria, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim and lack of documentation showing major contributions to the field.
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 · Occasional peer review participation does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.
- Membership · No evidence of specific criteria for admission to school of mathematics requiring outstanding achievement.
- Original contributions · Verifying parts of the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture does not rise to level of major significance like solving the full conjecture.
- Published material · Database listing and peer reviews do not constitute qualifying published materials about the petitioner.
- Scholarly articles · Published findings lack evidence of unusual influence or acclaim throughout the greater mathematical field.
- Final merits · Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place in the small percentage at the top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | Occasional peer review participation does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top. |
 Membership | Not met | No evidence of specific criteria for admission to school of mathematics requiring outstanding achievement. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Verifying parts of the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture does not rise to level of major significance like solving the full conjecture. |
 Published material | Not met | Database listing and peer reviews do not constitute qualifying published materials about the petitioner. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Published findings lack evidence of unusual influence or acclaim throughout the greater mathematical field. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place in the small percentage at the top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.