EB-1ALife sciences and medicineIndividualDecided September 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP032024_02B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.
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 petitioner met judging criterion; petitioner did not challenge
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner met publishing scholarly articles criterion; petitioner did not challenge
What was missing
- Awards · Chinese government awards not established as nationally or internationally recognized; award by national organization insufficient without significance documentation
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner worked under supervisor; contributions not documented as critical to organization outcomes
- Membership · Chinese Society of Particuology membership does not meet criterion requiring national or international expert judgment
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found petitioner met judging criterion; petitioner did not challenge |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner met publishing scholarly articles criterion; petitioner did not challenge |
 Awards | Not met | Chinese government awards not established as nationally or internationally recognized; award by national organization insufficient without significance documentation |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner worked under supervisor; contributions not documented as critical to organization outcomes |
 Membership | Not met | Chinese Society of Particuology membership does not meet criterion requiring national or international expert judgment |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Only two criteria met; three required; final merits analysis not reached |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.