Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AEducation and academiaIndividualDecided May 2021Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

MAY212021_01B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.

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 · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO affirmed on appeal.
  • Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO affirmed on appeal.

What was missing

  • Awards · Awards claimed lacked national or international recognition; award criteria and scope did not demonstrate excellence in field.
  • Original contributions · Contributions shown but not of major significance; impact and influence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.
  • Published material · Articles in Chinese publications not shown to be major media; insufficient evidence of circulation or distribution significance.
  • Final merits · Petitioner met only two criteria; three required. Overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in field.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetDirector found criterion satisfied; AAO affirmed on appeal.
Scholarly articlesMetDirector found criterion satisfied; AAO affirmed on appeal.
AwardsNot metAwards claimed lacked national or international recognition; award criteria and scope did not demonstrate excellence in field.
Original contributionsNot metContributions shown but not of major significance; impact and influence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.
Published materialNot metArticles in Chinese publications not shown to be major media; insufficient evidence of circulation or distribution significance.
Final meritsNot metPetitioner met only two criteria; three required. Overall record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in field.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.