Outcome: Dismissed
JUN242005_08B2203
Our summary
Biomedical researcher seeking EB-1A classification met two criteria: original contributions and scholarly articles, evidenced by National Academy of Science endorsements and citations. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two of three required criteria met and that evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top.
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
- Original contributions · National Academy of Science members confirmed impact on field with evidence
- Scholarly articles · Well-cited in scientific literature with three commentaries on petitioner's work
What was missing
- Awards · Awards based on academic achievement; no evidence of national recognition pool
- Leading or critical role · Postdoctoral fellow role at distinguished university does not meet criterion
- Final merits · Met only two criteria when three required; evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | National Academy of Science members confirmed impact on field with evidence | |
| Met | Well-cited in scientific literature with three commentaries on petitioner's work | |
| Not met | Awards based on academic achievement; no evidence of national recognition pool | |
| Not met | Postdoctoral fellow role at distinguished university does not meet criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision | |
| Not met | Met only two criteria when three required; evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
