Outcome: Remanded
FEB112026_03B2203
Our summary
Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.
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 · Service center found criterion met; petitioner maintains satisfaction on appeal
What was missing
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Service center found criterion met; petitioner maintains satisfaction on appeal | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but service center did not review or discuss evidence; remanded for full evaluation | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but service center did not adequately analyze evidence; remanded for review | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but service center did not review or discuss evidence; remanded for full evaluation | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Discussed but service center made unsubstantiated claims; remanded for proper evaluation | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Not reached due to service center errors; remanded for new determination |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
