EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided February 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
FEB072023_02B2203
Leading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metCommercial successNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Network communications professional claimed eight criteria for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted three additional criteria on appeal but failed to overcome deficiencies in evidence or explain how Director erred. AAO held petitioner did not meet the extra criteria and lacked sustained acclaim for top-of-field status.
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
- Leading or critical role · Director found petitioner satisfied this criterion; not disturbed on appeal
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner satisfied this criterion; not disturbed on appeal
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award established
- Commercial success · Regulation limits this criterion to performing arts; petitioner not in this field
- Original contributions · Committee work and standards lack evidence of significant impact on broader field
- Published material · Evidence not about petitioner; failed to respond to RFE on this criterion
- Final merits · Petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director found petitioner satisfied this criterion; not disturbed on appeal |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner satisfied this criterion; not disturbed on appeal |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award established |
 Commercial success | Not met | Regulation limits this criterion to performing arts; petitioner not in this field |
 Original contributions | Not met | Committee work and standards lack evidence of significant impact on broader field |
 Published material | Not met | Evidence not about petitioner; failed to respond to RFE on this criterion |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned this claim on appeal |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned this claim on appeal |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.