EB-1AOtherIndividualDecided 2012Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
Apr042012_01B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot met
Our summary
The self-represented petitioner is an industry scientist or engineer with publications and a patent who sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal. It rejected the awards, judging and original contributions claims, and although it found one other criterion minimally satisfied, the petitioner still lacked enough qualifying evidence.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · Director's adverse finding was not contested on appeal, so the issue was deemed abandoned.
- Judging · Informal mentoring and advising did not show formal designation as a judge of others' work.
- Original contributions · Modest citations and a patent did not show contributions of major significance in the field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Director's adverse finding was not contested on appeal, so the issue was deemed abandoned. |
 Judging | Not met | Informal mentoring and advising did not show formal designation as a judge of others' work. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Modest citations and a patent did not show contributions of major significance in the field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.