EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided March 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR052026_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
An assistant research scientist in medical entomology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant met only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria and failed to establish membership, published material, or original contributions.
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 · Service center found criterion met; petitioner satisfied judging requirement under regulatory standard.
- Scholarly articles · Service center found criterion met; petitioner satisfied scholarly articles requirement under regulatory standard.
What was missing
- Membership · Organization membership required outstanding achievements; petitioner showed only noteworthy achievements. Committee composition not demonstrated as nationally or internationally recognized experts.
- Original contributions · Citation metrics provided without contextualization or explanation of how they demonstrate major significance of contributions.
- Published material · Articles on phys.org and similar platforms are not major media; coverage insufficiently substantive about petitioner and work.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Service center found criterion met; petitioner satisfied judging requirement under regulatory standard. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Service center found criterion met; petitioner satisfied scholarly articles requirement under regulatory standard. |
 Membership | Not met | Organization membership required outstanding achievements; petitioner showed only noteworthy achievements. Committee composition not demonstrated as nationally or internationally recognized experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citation metrics provided without contextualization or explanation of how they demonstrate major significance of contributions. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles on phys.org and similar platforms are not major media; coverage insufficiently substantive about petitioner and work. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Failed threshold initial evidence requirement; final merits analysis not reached or reserved. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.