Outcome: Dismissed
DEC102025_01B2203
Our summary
A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.
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 · Peer review work and dissertation committee activities qualify as judging
- Published material · SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award received
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; talented but lacks evidence of small percentage at very top
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Peer review work and dissertation committee activities qualify as judging | |
| Met | SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement | |
| Met | SCOPS determined criterion satisfied; petitioner met initial evidentiary requirement | |
| Not met | No major internationally recognized award received | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim this criterion | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim this criterion | |
| Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; talented but lacks evidence of small percentage at very top |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
