EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2007Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Jun072007_01B2203
Scholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Biophysics researcher seeking EB-1A in sciences. Counsel submitted brief and evidence addressing awards, membership, judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. AAO upheld denial, finding only scholarly articles criterion met but overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top level 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
- Scholarly articles · Director concluded criterion met; AAO concurred with this determination.
What was missing
- Awards · Research grants cannot serve as lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence.
- Judging · Minimal peer review duties in separate field insufficient; petitioner lacks evidence of unusually large number of reviews or editorial position at distinguished journal.
- Membership · Associations do not require outstanding achievements of members; Ukrainian Biophysical Society and New York Academy open to qualified scientists without demonstrated extraordinary status.
- Original contributions · Opinions of experts cannot form cornerstone of acclaim claim; petitioner produced no unsolicited materials reflecting sustained national or international acclaim.
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranks among small percentage at very top of field; shows talent but not significantly above peers.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director concluded criterion met; AAO concurred with this determination. |
 Awards | Not met | Research grants cannot serve as lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. |
 Judging | Not met | Minimal peer review duties in separate field insufficient; petitioner lacks evidence of unusually large number of reviews or editorial position at distinguished journal. |
 Membership | Not met | Associations do not require outstanding achievements of members; Ukrainian Biophysical Society and New York Academy open to qualified scientists without demonstrated extraordinary status. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Opinions of experts cannot form cornerstone of acclaim claim; petitioner produced no unsolicited materials reflecting sustained national or international acclaim. |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not establish petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim or ranks among small percentage at very top of field; shows talent but not significantly above peers. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.