Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AEducation and academiaIndividualDecided November 2025Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

NOV212025_01B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

An honorary research professor in classical studies claimed seven evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the contested awards, membership, contributions and leading-role criteria unmet, so the three-criterion threshold failed and final merits were not reached.

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 it satisfied and the appeal decision left that finding undisturbed.
  • Scholarly articles · Service center found it satisfied and the appeal decision left that finding undisturbed.

What was missing

  • Awards · Grants, fellowships and research permits were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
  • Leading or critical role · Decision concluded the evidence did not satisfy this claimed criterion.
  • Membership · Decision concluded the evidence did not satisfy this claimed criterion.
  • Original contributions · Decision concluded the evidence did not satisfy this claimed criterion.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetService center found it satisfied and the appeal decision left that finding undisturbed.
Scholarly articlesMetService center found it satisfied and the appeal decision left that finding undisturbed.
AwardsNot metGrants, fellowships and research permits were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence.
Leading or critical roleNot metDecision concluded the evidence did not satisfy this claimed criterion.
MembershipNot metDecision concluded the evidence did not satisfy this claimed criterion.
Original contributionsNot metDecision concluded the evidence did not satisfy this claimed criterion.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed on appeal because the petitioner did not contest the denial, so the issue was waived.
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedFinal merits determination expressly reserved because fewer than three criteria were met.

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.