EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG312005_02B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Optical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and original contributions. AAO found judging criterion met but other criteria not satisfied. Evidence showed significant contributions but lacked demonstration of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.
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 · Served as external examiner for Ph.D. theses at Technical University of Denmark and supervised master students
What was missing
- Awards · Scholarship and travel grants awarded to students, not established scientists; internal Bellcore award lacks documented eligibility criteria
- Membership · Inclusion in article about Danish optical engineers does not establish membership in exclusive organization
- Original contributions · Patents and publications cited but do not establish contributions of major significance at top of field
- Published material · Citations of petitioner's work in others' articles do not establish published material as primary subject
- Final merits · Despite major contributions and judging role, evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Served as external examiner for Ph.D. theses at Technical University of Denmark and supervised master students |
 Awards | Not met | Scholarship and travel grants awarded to students, not established scientists; internal Bellcore award lacks documented eligibility criteria |
 Membership | Not met | Inclusion in article about Danish optical engineers does not establish membership in exclusive organization |
 Original contributions | Not met | Patents and publications cited but do not establish contributions of major significance at top of field |
 Published material | Not met | Citations of petitioner's work in others' articles do not establish published material as primary subject |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite major contributions and judging role, evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.