EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG122005_17B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Peer review for multiple entities accepted as minimal evidence of criterion
What was missing
- Awards · NSF grant not demonstrated as actually issued; academic awards ineligible
- Membership · IEEE membership does not require outstanding achievement as condition for admission
- Original contributions · Reference letters and supporting materials do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim
- Published material · Published articles more directly relate to other criteria but do not establish sustained acclaim
- Final merits · Evidence does not establish petitioner at very top of field; shows talent but not extraordinary ability
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Peer review for multiple entities accepted as minimal evidence of criterion |
 Awards | Not met | NSF grant not demonstrated as actually issued; academic awards ineligible |
 Membership | Not met | IEEE membership does not require outstanding achievement as condition for admission |
 Original contributions | Not met | Reference letters and supporting materials do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim |
 Published material | Not met | Published articles more directly relate to other criteria but do not establish sustained acclaim |
 Final merits | Not met | Evidence does not establish petitioner at very top of field; shows talent but not extraordinary ability |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.