Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AChemistry and materialsIndividualDecided September 2022Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

SEP282022_01B2203

JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A materials scientist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming judging, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three criteria met, correcting the director's reliance on outside website information. It still dismissed the appeal because the final merits review showed no individual sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

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 · The director found it met and the AAO did not disturb that finding.
  • Original contributions · On appeal the AAO found heavily cited work satisfied the criterion, disagreeing with the director's reasoning.
  • Scholarly articles · The director found it met and the AAO agreed.

What was missing

  • Final merits · Citations to team research did not show individual sustained acclaim or standing at the very top.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetThe director found it met and the AAO did not disturb that finding.
Original contributionsMetOn appeal the AAO found heavily cited work satisfied the criterion, disagreeing with the director's reasoning.
Scholarly articlesMetThe director found it met and the AAO agreed.
Final meritsNot metCitations to team research did not show individual sustained acclaim or standing at the very top.

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.