dismissed EB-1A RFE Issued
Researcher
Clinical-Stage Biotechnology Company · 2024-10-04
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 metJudging the work of others (Met)
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion relating to judging.
Authorship of scholarly articles (Met)
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied the criterion relating to authoring scholarly articles.
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field (Not Met)
The Petitioner's contributions were found to be original, but the evidence did not establish they were of major significance to the field as a whole, as expert letters failed to delineate field-wide impact beyond originality or incremental contributions. Her research on auranofin was later found to lead to life-threatening conditions, diminishing its positive impact.
Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation (Not Met)
The Petitioner failed to provide sufficient independent and objective evidence to demonstrate that the organization for which she performed a role had a distinguished reputation as of the filing date, relying on self-promotional material and government funding which does not inherently prove distinguished reputation.
Why This Petition Was Denied
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.
Request for Evidence (RFE)
Unsuccessfully AddressedThe RFE requested additional evidence, and in response, the Petitioner submitted an updated Google Scholar profile and OpenAlex author metrics, which were largely disregarded as post-filing evidence. The RFE also prompted the Petitioner to claim eligibility under the 'leading or critical role' criterion, which was subsequently found unmet.
RFE Targets
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the fieldPerformance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation
Evidence
Evidence Types
Peer Reviewed Publications
Citations
Reference Letters Dependent
Judging Experience
Original Contributions
Media Coverage
Government Alignment
Evidence Submitted
- Google Scholar profile (9 published works, 2 with >28 citations)
- Clarivate Analytics InCites Essential Science Indicators
- OpenAlex author metrics
- Opinion letters from four authors (including PhD advisor and assistant professor of microbiology and cell biology in India)
- Judging service
- Scholarly articles
- Media articles (New York Post, New York Daily News, Business Insider)
Similar Cases
Research Scientist
Biotechnology · Armenia
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
United States 2025-02-03
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).
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.
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.
Biochemist
Biotechnology · China
USCIS EB-1A rfe dismissed
2024-11-12
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish original scientific contributions of major significance to the field (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). Citation data from Clarivate Analytics, indicating articles in the top 1% and 10% of 'Biology & Biochemistry', was deemed unreliable due to a disclaimer and overly broad categorization. Expert letters and media coverage were found insufficient to demonstrate major significance beyond specific research groups or general usefulness. Funding from 'major Chinese agencies' also did not inherently prove major significance. Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the minimum three criteria for extraordinary ability.
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
Case data sourced from publicly available petition decisions and case studies. Decision date: 2024-10-04.
Browse all casesAt a Glance
Outcome dismissed
RFE Issued
Criteria Met 2 / 3
Evidence Types 7
EB-1A Case Data
Scraped Case Data
Total Cases 881
Success Rate 52.9%
Sustained 466
Dismissed 299
Related Pages
Get Case Insights
Compare your profile against thousands of real petition outcomes. Join the waitlist for personalized analysis.
Join Waitlist