EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN202005_07B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A chemist researching anti-cancer agents filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she did not meet three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim placing her at the very top of her 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
- Awards · No major international recognized award documented
- Judging · No evidence of judging work of established researchers in field
- Membership · ACS membership does not require outstanding achievement as admission prerequisite
- Original contributions · Recommendation letters alone insufficient; lack independent corroboration of major significance
- Published material · No evidence petitioner was primary subject of media coverage or major publications
- Scholarly articles · Citations of petitioner's work insufficient without substantive discussion in citing articles
- Final merits · Evidence shows meaningful contributions but not sustained national or international acclaim at top level
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | No major international recognized award documented |
 Judging | Not met | No evidence of judging work of established researchers in field |
 Membership | Not met | ACS membership does not require outstanding achievement as admission prerequisite |
 Original contributions | Not met | Recommendation letters alone insufficient; lack independent corroboration of major significance |
 Published material | Not met | No evidence petitioner was primary subject of media coverage or major publications |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Citations of petitioner's work insufficient without substantive discussion in citing articles |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence shows meaningful contributions but not 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.