EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided March 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR192026_03B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.
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 · Petitioner participated as judge; SCOPS finding not disturbed.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly articles; SCOPS finding not disturbed.
What was missing
- Awards · Grants from AARF and HDSA do not qualify; based on project innovation, not individual achievement.
- Membership · HSG and ISTAART lack evidence of outstanding achievement requirements and expert judgment.
- Original contributions · Citation numbers do not demonstrate contributions of major significance to field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner participated as judge; SCOPS finding not disturbed. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored scholarly articles; SCOPS finding not disturbed. |
 Awards | Not met | Grants from AARF and HDSA do not qualify; based on project innovation, not individual achievement. |
 Membership | Not met | HSG and ISTAART lack evidence of outstanding achievement requirements and expert judgment. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citation numbers do not demonstrate contributions of major significance to field. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Did not reach merits; petitioner failed initial criteria threshold. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.