EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB032021_01B2203
Original contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Chief technology officer claims extraordinary ability based on patents and press coverage. AAO found articles focus on company work, not personal achievements, and patents lack demonstrated major significance in field. Appeal dismissed without reaching remaining criteria.
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
- Original contributions · Patents show promise but lack evidence of major significance or field impact
- Published material · Articles about company projects, not about petitioner personally or his achievements
- Final merits · Petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Original contributions | Not met | Patents show promise but lack evidence of major significance or field impact |
 Published material | Not met | Articles about company projects, not about petitioner personally or his achievements |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but not reached; first two criteria failed decisively |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but not reached; first two criteria failed decisively |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.