Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided November 2022Remanded

Outcome: Remanded

NOV292022_02B2203

JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed

Our summary

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 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 · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
  • Leading or critical role · AAO concluded petitioner met plain language requirements; employer documented leading role
  • Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding

What was missing

Every criterion in the table was found met.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetDirector found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
Leading or critical roleMetAAO concluded petitioner met plain language requirements; employer documented leading role
Scholarly articlesMetDirector found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed on appeal after initial claim
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed on appeal but not analyzed; initial evidence requirement already met
Final meritsNot reached / not discussedThree initial criteria met; remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim

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.