EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2008Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Jan282008_01B2203
Original contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Biomedical researcher in sciences claimed extraordinary ability based on grants, memberships, contributions, and publications. AAO affirmed denial despite finding two criteria met, holding that meeting multiple criteria alone does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for top of 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
- Original contributions · Letters from Nobel Laureate and National Academy member supported significant contributions criterion
- Scholarly articles · Publication and citation record established scholarly articles criterion
What was missing
- Awards · Travel award and research grant do not demonstrate top of field; experienced researchers ineligible
- Judging · Invitation to review manuscripts insufficient to meet criterion
- Membership · Membership in professional associations lacks evidence of outstanding achievement requirement; memberships lapsed
- Final merits · Meeting two criteria insufficient; evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Original contributions | Met | Letters from Nobel Laureate and National Academy member supported significant contributions criterion |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Publication and citation record established scholarly articles criterion |
 Awards | Not met | Travel award and research grant do not demonstrate top of field; experienced researchers ineligible |
 Judging | Not met | Invitation to review manuscripts insufficient to meet criterion |
 Membership | Not met | Membership in professional associations lacks evidence of outstanding achievement requirement; memberships lapsed |
 Final merits | Not met | Meeting two criteria insufficient; evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.