Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AData science and analyticsIndividualDecided August 2024Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

AUG262024_02B2203

JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met

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

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetDirector found petitioner met criterion for judging work of others in field; AAO agreed without dispute.
Scholarly articlesMetDirector found petitioner met this criterion; AAO agreed without dispute.
Original contributionsNot metPetitioner claimed major significance contributions but failed to establish both originality and major significance required by criterion.
Published materialNot metWebsite publication lacked evidence of professional or major trade publication status; insufficient circulation and readership documentation provided.
Final meritsNot metOnly 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.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.