Outcome: Dismissed
AUG262024_02B2203
Our summary
Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.
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 · Director found petitioner met criterion for judging work of others in field; AAO agreed without dispute.
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner met this criterion; AAO agreed without dispute.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Petitioner claimed major significance contributions but failed to establish both originality and major significance required by criterion.
- Published material · Website publication lacked evidence of professional or major trade publication status; insufficient circulation and readership documentation provided.
- Final merits · Only two criteria met; three required to proceed to final merits. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found petitioner met criterion for judging work of others in field; AAO agreed without dispute. | |
| Met | Director found petitioner met this criterion; AAO agreed without dispute. | |
| Not met | Petitioner claimed major significance contributions but failed to establish both originality and major significance required by criterion. | |
| Not met | Website publication lacked evidence of professional or major trade publication status; insufficient circulation and readership documentation provided. | |
| Not met | Only two criteria met; three required to proceed to final merits. Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
