EB-1ACivil and environmental engineeringIndividualDecided November 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
NOV062025_01B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.
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 · SCOPS found petitioner met criterion for judging work of others
- Original contributions · SCOPS found petitioner met criterion for original contributions of major significance
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS found petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications
What was missing
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among small percentage at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS found petitioner met criterion for judging work of others |
 Original contributions | Met | SCOPS found petitioner met criterion for original contributions of major significance |
 Scholarly articles | Met | SCOPS found petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among small percentage at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.