EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided October 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT192020_02B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Research associate in cellular and molecular carcinogenesis mechanisms claimed three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles met but reversed original contributions finding. On final merits, sustained national or international acclaim insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability.
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 · Peer review of manuscripts for professional journals constitutes judging under regulation.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly articles published in professional publications.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Citations and expert letters show field noticed work but do not demonstrate major significance impact.
- Final merits · Totality of evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Peer review of manuscripts for professional journals constitutes judging under regulation. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored scholarly articles published in professional publications. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Citations and expert letters show field noticed work but do not demonstrate major significance impact. |
 Final merits | Not met | Totality of evidence does not show sustained national or international acclaim at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.