EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN242005_20B2203
Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Pharmacokinetics reviewer at FDA sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found petitioner met only the scholarly articles criterion and failed to meet three required criteria. Evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the scientific 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
- Scholarly articles · Evidence adequately satisfies scholarly articles criterion
What was missing
- Awards · Awards not widely recognized beyond presenting organization
- Judging · Occasional peer review does not demonstrate sustained national acclaim
- Leading or critical role · FDA pharmacokinetics reviewer role does not demonstrate leading or critical role
- Membership · Membership based on employment or activity, not outstanding achievement
- Published material · Citations to petitioner's work do not satisfy published material criterion
- Final merits · Met only one criterion when three required; evidence insufficient for top-tier distinction
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Evidence adequately satisfies scholarly articles criterion |
 Awards | Not met | Awards not widely recognized beyond presenting organization |
 Judging | Not met | Occasional peer review does not demonstrate sustained national acclaim |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | FDA pharmacokinetics reviewer role does not demonstrate leading or critical role |
 Membership | Not met | Membership based on employment or activity, not outstanding achievement |
 Published material | Not met | Citations to petitioner's work do not satisfy published material criterion |
 Final merits | Not met | Met only one criterion when three required; evidence insufficient for top-tier distinction |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.