EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN242005_02B2203
Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A pharmacokinetics reviewer at the FDA seeking extraordinary ability classification based on awards, membership, published material, peer review, and leadership roles. The AAO found only published work met criteria; other evidence was insufficient to establish sustained national acclaim warranting extraordinary ability classification.
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
- Scholarly articles · Evidence adequately satisfied this criterion; published work recognized
What was missing
- Awards · Awards not shown to be widely recognized beyond presenting organization; scholarships insufficient evidence
- Judging · Occasional peer review does not demonstrate sustained national acclaim at top of field without exceptional scope
- Leading or critical role · FDA pharmacokinetics reviewer role does not establish leading or critical role for distinguished organization
- Membership · Membership requirements based on employment or experience do not constitute outstanding achievement
- Final merits · Only one criterion met; evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Evidence adequately satisfied this criterion; published work recognized |
 Awards | Not met | Awards not shown to be widely recognized beyond presenting organization; scholarships insufficient evidence |
 Judging | Not met | Occasional peer review does not demonstrate sustained national acclaim at top of field without exceptional scope |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | FDA pharmacokinetics reviewer role does not establish leading or critical role for distinguished organization |
 Membership | Not met | Membership requirements based on employment or experience do not constitute outstanding achievement |
 Final merits | Not met | Only one criterion met; evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top level |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.