Research Associate

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. While she met the 'scholarly articles' criterion (publishing in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and PLOS One), she did not provide sufficient evidence for 'awards' (a poster prize at EAACI lacked specific award details or criteria, and the RFE for primary evidence was not resolved) or 'original contributions of major significance' (52 cumulative citations across three articles were not shown to be unusually high for her field, and expert letters lacked specific corroborating details of major impact or widespread implementation). The AAO concluded she had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. While the Petitioner satisfied the criteria for authorship of scholarly articles (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)) and judging the work of others (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)), she did not establish a third criterion. Specifically, claims for membership in professional associations, original contributions of major significance, a leading or critical role, and high salary were not met. The evidence for a leading/critical role was insufficient, lacking detailed letters from individuals with personal knowledge. For high salary, the submitted W-2s and salary surveys (New Scientist, NIH, Salary.com) did not demonstrate a 'high salary' relative to others in the field, only 'above average' at best, and some data lacked sufficient comparative basis.