EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2007Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Jan312007_02B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A research scientist sought extraordinary ability classification. He claimed awards, membership, published material, and judging experience. The AAO found the research grant primarily attributed to principal investigators, not the petitioner; membership criteria unmet; publications not primarily about petitioner and lacking author attribution; and judging did not establish top-tier acclaim. Appeal dismissed.
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 · Research grant attributable primarily to principal researchers, not petitioner; funding does not constitute excellence award
- Judging · Judging participation does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at field's top level
- Membership · Petitioner did not demonstrate association membership required outstanding achievement as essential admission condition
- Published material · Published material not primarily about petitioner; author names not provided as required; not in major publications
- Final merits · Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Research grant attributable primarily to principal researchers, not petitioner; funding does not constitute excellence award |
 Judging | Not met | Judging participation does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at field's top level |
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate association membership required outstanding achievement as essential admission condition |
 Published material | Not met | Published material not primarily about petitioner; author names not provided as required; not in major publications |
 Final merits | Not met | Overall evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.