EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN172005_02B2203
Leading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Researcher in sciences filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; two were met on appeal: published articles with citations and postdoctoral role. However, AAO found overall evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Leading or critical role · Postdoctoral fellowship at national organization with expected publication freedom and research career appointment.
- Scholarly articles · Citations demonstrate petitioner's impact in field; evidence of recognized work beyond immediate colleagues.
What was missing
- Awards · Academic awards cannot meet this criterion; record lacks evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes.
- Judging · Peer review is routine; petitioner lacks evidence of unusually large number of reviews or distinguished editorial position.
- Published material · Citations to petitioner's work insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.
- Final merits · Despite meeting two criteria, evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top level.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Postdoctoral fellowship at national organization with expected publication freedom and research career appointment. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Citations demonstrate petitioner's impact in field; evidence of recognized work beyond immediate colleagues. |
 Awards | Not met | Academic awards cannot meet this criterion; record lacks evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes. |
 Judging | Not met | Peer review is routine; petitioner lacks evidence of unusually large number of reviews or distinguished editorial position. |
 Published material | Not met | Citations to petitioner's work insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim. |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting two criteria, evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at top level. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.