Visalytics
Visalytics
dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued

Materials Science & Polymer Researcher

Materials Science & Polymer Researcher · Russia · 2024-08-14

Decision Date
2024-08-14
This case is from a USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) appeal decision. Appeal cases represent a subset of petitions and may not reflect typical outcomes.

Framework Evaluation

3 of 3 criteria met
Participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of endeavor. (Met)

The Director determined this criterion was met, and the AAO agreed, though the Petitioner's appeal regarding its international recognition was not sufficiently supported.

Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. (Met)

The Director determined this criterion was met. The Beneficiary authored 46 scholarly articles with 443 citations, but the AAO found the citation record insufficient to demonstrate major impact or sustained acclaim in the broader field.

Evidence of having performed a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. (Met)

The Director determined this criterion was met. The Beneficiary held principal investigator and CTO roles, but the AAO concluded these roles did not distinguish him as being at the very top of the field compared to post-doctoral peers.

Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. (Not Met)

The Beneficiary's awards were part of a local competition in Russia, limited to Russian Federation citizens, and lacked national or international significance for excellence in the field.

Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. (Not Met)

While the Beneficiary had five patents and contributed to a prototype, the evidence did not demonstrate widespread utilization or major significance of these contributions to the field at the time of filing.

Why This Petition Was Denied

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the materials science and polymer research field. Specific reasons included: awards lacked national/international significance and were limited to Russian Federation citizens; 46 scholarly articles garnered 443 citations, but the highest cited paper only had 60 citations since 2015, which was deemed insufficient compared to other scientists in the broader field; five patents were noted but lacked evidence of widespread adoption or significant influence on the field beyond a prototype; and leading roles at institutions abroad did not demonstrate sustained national or international recognition beyond routine contributions for post-doctoral peers.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) challenging the major significance of the Beneficiary's original contributions (patents) and the impact of his scholarly articles, particularly his citation record. The Petitioner responded by asserting the broadness of the Beneficiary's research domain and highlighting his total citation count.

RFE Targets
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Leading Role
Patents
Reference Letters Dependent
Evidence Submitted
  • Awards (local/regional, not nationally/internationally recognized)
  • Judging experience (met initial criterion)
  • Scholarly articles (46 articles, 443 citations total, highest cited paper 60 citations since 2015)
  • Leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (met initial criterion)
  • Original contributions of major significance (patents, 5 patents listed as co-inventor; prototype development for wastewater solution)
  • Expert recommendation letters

Similar Cases

Research Scientist

Materials Science

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2025-01-10
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate 'original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.' The AAO found that citation records, even if placing the Petitioner in the top 10% or 1% by Clarivate Analytics, did not automatically establish major significance. Expert letters were deemed insufficient as they did not clearly explain how the Petitioner's work had a major impact on the field, with one paper having 7 citations, another 422 (but without detailing the impact of petitioner's work), and a third 9 citations. Peer review service was also not considered a major contribution, as it is primarily an evaluative process. The Petitioner only satisfied two of the ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and thus did not meet the minimum three required.

Research Scientist

Biotechnology · China

WeGreened EB-1A approved
Michigan 526 days 2025-08-06
The petition was approved based on 15 peer-reviewed journal articles and a high citation count of 592, placing the researcher in the top 1% of the field. Additionally, the petitioner completed 26 invited manuscript reviews for leading journals, satisfying the judging criterion. The evidence demonstrated significant original contributions to the field of polymer science and tissue engineering.
View Case

Research Scientist

Research and Development · China

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-09-03
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate a one-time achievement and failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the awards were not proven to be nationally or internationally recognized, membership in the Chinese Society of Particuology lacked proper translation and proof of outstanding achievement requirements, the patent's major significance was not documented, and the Petitioner's role at the organization was not shown to be leading or critical.

Postdoctoral Researcher

Materials Science · Nepal

WeGreened EB-1A approved
Tennessee 20 days 2025-12-03
The approval was based on meeting at least three EB-1A criteria: authorship of scholarly articles, participation as a judge of the work of others, and original contributions of major significance. Specific metrics included 19 peer-reviewed journal articles, 819 citations from researchers in 64 countries, and 32 peer reviews for elite journals. The case also demonstrated substantial federal funding from the USDA and DOE as evidence of the work's national importance.
View Case

Frequently Asked Questions

A dismissed EB-1A petition means USCIS found the evidence insufficient to meet the eligibility criteria. Common reasons include weak documentation, failure to meet the required number of criteria, or insufficient evidence of the claimed qualifications. Petitioners can refile with stronger evidence or explore alternative visa categories.

Browse More Cases

More dismissed cases More Materials Science cases More cases from Russia

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-08-14.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 3 / 3
Evidence Types 6

EB-1A Case Data

Scraped Case Data

Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299

Related Pages

EB-1A Overview EB-1A in Russia All EB-1A Cases EB-1A Dashboard

Get Case Insights

Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.

Join Waitlist