Outcome: Dismissed
AUG222016_02B2203
Our summary
CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.
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
- Leading or critical role · Director found petitioner performed leading role for distinguished organization
- Scholarly articles · Seven scholarly articles in professional publications documented
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award established
- Membership · Membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements as judged by experts
- Original contributions · Citation count and recommendations insufficient to show major significance contributions
- Final merits · Did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; final merits analysis not required
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found petitioner performed leading role for distinguished organization | |
| Met | Seven scholarly articles in professional publications documented | |
| Not met | No major internationally recognized award established | |
| Not met | Membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements as judged by experts | |
| Not met | Citation count and recommendations insufficient to show major significance contributions | |
| Not met | Did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; final merits analysis not required |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
