EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN172005_08B2203
Published materialMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Scientist in life sciences sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two of ten criteria: published material and scholarly articles. However, the AAO found the evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.
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
- Published material · Evidence showed citations indicating influence of petitioner's articles in the field.
- Scholarly articles · Postdoctoral appointment by national organization expected publication of research.
What was missing
- Awards · No evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
- Judging · Peer review is routine; evidence did not set petitioner apart from others.
- Leading or critical role · Not every postdoctoral fellow plays leading or critical role for institution.
- Final merits · Evidence shows talent but does not establish sustained acclaim at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Published material | Met | Evidence showed citations indicating influence of petitioner's articles in the field. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Postdoctoral appointment by national organization expected publication of research. |
 Awards | Not met | No evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. |
 Judging | Not met | Peer review is routine; evidence did not set petitioner apart from others. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Not every postdoctoral fellow plays leading or critical role for institution. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows talent but does not establish sustained acclaim at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.