This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the initial threshold. Even considering the Director's prior finding of three met criteria, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, an associate professor and pharmacology researcher in Malaysia, sought EB-1A classification claiming six evidentiary criteria. The Nebraska Service Center denied the petition after the final merits stage, finding three criteria met but insufficient overall acclaim. On appeal, the AAO reversed the Director's finding on the membership criterion, leaving only two criteria satisfied (judging and scholarly articles), which is below the required minimum of three. Because the threshold was not met, no full final merits determination was warranted. The AAO found that citation counts, a pending patent, supplement sales, and committee service did not establish the field-wide impact and top-of-field standing required for extraordinary ability. The petitioner was described as an actively contributing member of the scientific community, but productivity alone does not equal acclaim.
What failed: 1. Awards and prizes failed because most did not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes for field excellence — a long-service award, a scholarship, and a Who's Who listing are not field-recognition prizes. 2. Membership criterion failed because none of the five claimed associations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts at the petitioner's actual membership level; 'meritorious' work for ASPET regular membership is a lower bar than 'outstanding.' 3. Original contributions failed because citation counts were low, the patent was unapproved, supplement sales were uncontextualized, and collaborators described results as still tentative — none of this demonstrated major significance in the field.
Takeaway: Petitioners must document not just membership in professional societies but specifically that their membership tier requires outstanding achievement judged by national or international experts. For original contributions, quantitative evidence like citation counts and sales figures must be benchmarked against field norms to show they reflect major significance rather than routine professional productivity.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Awards and prizes failed because most did not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes for field excellence — a long-service award, a scholarship, and a Who's Who listing are not field-recognition prizes
- Membership criterion failed because none of the five claimed associations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts at the petitioner's actual membership level
- 'meritorious' work for ASPET regular membership is a lower bar than 'outstanding.' 3
- Original contributions failed because citation counts were low, the patent was unapproved, supplement sales were uncontextualized, and collaborators described results as still tentative — none of this demonstrated major significance in the field.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metSix claimed awards failed: a Who's Who entry is not a prize, a Long Service Award recognized employment tenure not field excellence, a government scholarship funded graduate studies, an award from Nigeria's High Commission lacked documented basis in field excellence, and two conference third-place prizes were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Reversed in their favorDirector found this met without comment, but AAO reversed. None of the five claimed associations were shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts at the petitioner's membership level. ASPET 'regular' membership requires only 'meritorious' (not 'outstanding') work, and no expert judging of applicants was shown.
Judging the work of others
MetBoth Director and AAO agreed participation in peer review satisfies the judging criterion, though the AAO noted peer review is routine in academia.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metCitations (max 22 over 8 years for top paper) not shown to indicate major significance; patent application not approved; commercialized supplement sales of 9,000 bottles not shown to be significant; research collaborators described results as still tentative and promising in animals only.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetBoth Director and AAO agreed the petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Not metUniversity has a distinguished reputation, but petitioner's committee service, strategic initiative work, and conference organization were not shown to be leading or critical roles for the university as a whole or for distinctly reputed subdivisions.
Participation in peer review of manuscripts established judging of the work of others under criterion (iv)
Authorship of published scholarly articles established criterion (vi)
Who's Who directory entry — not a prize or award
Long Service Award — recognized employment tenure and job performance, not field-wide excellence
Government scholarship — funded graduate studies, not a prize for excellence in the field
Award from Nigeria's High Commission in Malaysia — no documentation of basis in field excellence
Two conference third-place presentation prizes — not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized
ASPET regular membership — requires only 'meritorious' (not 'outstanding') work with no expert judging of applicants
British Pharmacological Society membership — level not documented; subcommittee membership not limited to elite members
Malaysian Natural Products Society membership — general open membership, not honorary membership requiring outstanding contribution
Citation counts (max 22 for top paper over 8 years) — not shown to reflect major significance
Patent application for plant extract powder — not approved and not yet commercialized
Supplement with 9,000 bottles sold — not shown to be a significant sales figure or to have had appreciable health impact
Research collaboration letters — described results as still tentative, pending human studies
Committee service and conference organization at university — not shown to be leading or critical roles for the institution as a whole
Director erroneously found the membership criterion (ii) satisfied without analysis or comment; AAO reversed this finding after detailed review of each association's membership requirements.
Director reached final merits determination despite petitioner only meeting two criteria (as corrected by AAO), which was procedurally premature under Kazarian.
Completed
I-140 filed
Associate professor and pharmacology researcher at a Malaysian university; also a consultant for plant-based supplement manufacturers
Completed
Nebraska Service Center — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-06-09
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the initial threshold. Even considering the Director's prior finding of three met criteria, the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner at the very top of the field.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee