sustained
EB-1A
sustained EB-1A Case: Neuroscience
Decision Summary
The appeal was sustained because the AAO found the petitioner's evidence met at least three regulatory criteria. The decision explicitly found that the petitioner satisfied the criteria for judging the work of others (by serving on review committees and reviewing for distinguished journals) and for making original scientific contributions of major significance, which were supported by numerous expert letters and dozens of independent citations.
Criteria Discussed
Judging The Work Of Others Original Scientific Contributions Of Major Significance
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →Draft with AAO-aware legal structure
MeritDraft helps you turn research into a criteria-based petition draft with organized evidence, legal framing, and attorney-ready structure.
Start a Criteria-Based Draft →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.