EB-1ALife sciences and medicineEmployerDecided 2009Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Jun242009_02B2203
JudgingMetHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Employer petitioned for scientist beneficiary claiming extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO upheld denial, finding one criterion met but three required; letters and salary evidence insufficient for major significance; failed to demonstrate beneficiary among small percentage at field 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
- Judging · AAO withdrew director's finding and found sufficient evidence under this criterion
What was missing
- High salary · Salary above average but not significantly high relative to others in field
- Leading or critical role · Failed to establish nature of role and reputation of organizations sufficient for criterion
- Original contributions · Letters of recommendation alone insufficient; no evidence of major significance or unusual influence
- Final merits · Did not meet major award or three criteria; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at top level
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | AAO withdrew director's finding and found sufficient evidence under this criterion |
 High salary | Not met | Salary above average but not significantly high relative to others in field |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Failed to establish nature of role and reputation of organizations sufficient for criterion |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters of recommendation alone insufficient; no evidence of major significance or unusual influence |
 Final merits | Not met | Did not meet major award or three criteria; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at top level |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.