Research Scientist

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.

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 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.

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.