Outcome: Dismissed
Apr232009_04B2203
Our summary
Scientist claimed extraordinary ability via three criteria: awards, membership, and judging. AAO found membership ineligible due to timing and awards insufficient, declined separate judging analysis, and concluded petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim at field's highest level.
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 · Petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes
- Membership · Sigma Xi membership elected after petition filing; association membership requirements insufficient
- Final merits · Evidence does not distinguish petitioner as among small percentage at very top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Petitioner failed to establish lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes | |
| Not met | Sigma Xi membership elected after petition filing; association membership requirements insufficient | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed separately; mentioned in aggregate review only | |
| Not met | Evidence does not distinguish petitioner as among small percentage at very top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
