Visalytics
Visalytics
dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued

Research Scientist

Sciences · China · 2024-09-03

Decision Date
2024-09-03
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

2 of 3 criteria met
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of endeavor for which classification is sought. (Met)

The Director concluded, and the record supported, that the Petitioner met this criterion for acting as a judge of the work of others in her field.

Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. (Met)

The Director concluded, and the record supported, that the Petitioner met this criterion for publishing scholarly articles in her field.

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

The Petitioner's awards (Excellent Achievements in Science and Technology, Progress Award) were not established as nationally or internationally recognized due to insufficient documentation of their significance and criteria, and new evidence was not considered on appeal.

Membership in associations in the field of endeavor which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. (Not Met)

Membership in the Chinese Society of Particuology (CSP) was not established due to the lack of a certified English translation of membership requirements in the initial filing, and new evidence was not considered on appeal.

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

The Petitioner's co-receipt of a patent in China was not shown to be an original contribution of major significance, as no documentation demonstrated its impact or utilization in the field beyond a supervisor's uncorroborated statement.

Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations. (Not Met)

The Petitioner's work at an organization, including authorship of a research protocol, was not established as a leading or critical role for the organization itself, as supporting letters and email exchanges did not indicate such a role.

Why This Petition Was Denied

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.

Request for Evidence (RFE)

Unsuccessfully Addressed

The NOID requested further documentation to establish the significance and criteria of the Petitioner's awards, and a certified English translation for foreign-language documents related to CSP membership requirements. The Petitioner failed to provide this requested evidence in response to the NOID, and new evidence submitted on appeal was not considered.

RFE Targets
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor.Membership in associations in the field of endeavor which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts.Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field.

Evidence

Evidence Types
Awards
Judging Experience
Scholarly Articles
Professional Memberships
Patents
Reference Letters Dependent
Evidence Submitted
  • documentation regarding awards (Excellent Achievements in Science and Technology award, Progress Award)
  • acting as a judge of the work of others in her field
  • publishing scholarly articles in her field
  • membership in the Chinese Society of Particuology (CSP)
  • co-receipt of a patent in China
  • support letter from J-W- (graduate school supervisor)
  • support letter from Professor D-K- (supervisor)
  • authorship of a research protocol and related experiments
  • citation record (mentioned but not sufficiently documented)
  • foreign-language website printout (CSP)
  • English-language printout of CSP's website
  • printout of I I website homepage

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

Artificial Intelligence

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-12-23
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, memberships in associations (AAAI, IAENG, IEEE Computer Society, ISAC) did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and some memberships were still processing or lacked supporting documentation. Original contributions lacked major significance, as support letters were conclusory and citation statistics did not demonstrate widespread influence or heavy reliance by other researchers. The Petitioner's leading/critical role as Director of ICT and AI researcher was not sufficiently proven with organizational charts or evidence of the organizations' distinguished reputations. Subsequent citations post-filing were not considered as eligibility must be met at the time of filing.

Research Scientist

Biotechnology · Germany

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-09-27
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.

Researcher

Biotechnology

USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-10-04
The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. For 'original contributions of major significance', USCIS found her work original but lacked evidence of major impact on the field, noting that citations alone (e.g., two papers with more than 28 citations out of nine published) did not inherently prove major significance, especially when expert letters failed to delineate field-wide impact. The AAO also noted that her research on auranofin, while original, was later found to lead to life-threatening conditions in subsequent studies, diminishing its positive contribution. For 'leading or critical role', the Petitioner failed to provide independent, objective evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of her employer as of the filing date, relying instead on self-promotional material and post-filing evidence. The AAO also rejected post-filing evidence for establishing initial eligibility.

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 Research and Development cases More cases from China

Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-09-03.

Browse all cases

At a Glance

Outcome dismissed
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 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 China 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