Outcome: Dismissed
FEB262020_02B2203
Our summary
Mechanical engineer with Ph.D. claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles. AAO found three criteria met but denied on final merits, finding petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim at top of field, with recognition tied to laboratory rather than individual achievements.
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 · Petitioner selected for peer review based on expertise in field
- Original contributions · Robotics work fundamentally improved state of technology in research
- Scholarly articles · Published work cited and acknowledged by decision
What was missing
- Final merits · No sustained individual acclaim; recognition preceded petitioner's involvement
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Petitioner selected for peer review based on expertise in field | |
| Met | Robotics work fundamentally improved state of technology in research | |
| Met | Published work cited and acknowledged by decision | |
| Not met | No sustained individual acclaim; recognition preceded petitioner's involvement |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
