Bioinformatics Researcher

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a one-time internationally recognized award or meet at least three of the 10 EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the AAO found that a research grant was not awarded to the Petitioner personally, and a patent from Armenia did not qualify as an award for excellence (criterion i). Memberships were deemed employment-based or lacked evidence of requiring outstanding achievements (criterion ii). Published material only cited the Petitioner's work, rather than being 'about' her, and lacked substantial discussion (criterion iii). The patent and 40+ citations were not shown to be of 'major significance' due to lack of commercialization evidence, contextual comparison, or demonstration of actual impact since 2014 (criterion v). Finally, the Petitioner's various roles were not established as 'leading or critical' for organizations with a 'distinguished reputation' (criterion viii).

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 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.