Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided 2009Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

Mar272009_05B2203

AwardsNot metMembershipNot metCommercial successClaimed, not analyzedExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Scientist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, citing research grant and memberships in Sigma Xi and IEEE. AAO found neither awards nor memberships satisfied criteria due to their standard requirements and large membership bases, then dismissed appeal for insufficient evidence of top-level acclaim.

Official PDF

Official PDF ↗

Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.

No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.

What was missing

  • Awards · Research grant not equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence
  • Membership · Sigma Xi and IEEE membership based on standard requirements, not outstanding achievement
  • Final merits · Evidence does not distinguish petitioner as one of small percentage at very top of field

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
AwardsNot metResearch grant not equivalent to nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence
MembershipNot metSigma Xi and IEEE membership based on standard requirements, not outstanding achievement
Commercial successClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
ExhibitionsClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
High salaryClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
JudgingClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
Scholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedNot claimed or analyzed
Final meritsNot metEvidence does not distinguish petitioner as one of small percentage at very top of 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.