Outcome: Dismissed
FEB272026_03B2203
Our summary
Aerospace researcher claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found she met fewer than three criteria required and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field, dismissing the appeal.
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
- Awards · Award not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in field
- Judging · Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements
- Membership · Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements
- Original contributions · Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements
- Scholarly articles · Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements
- Final merits · Record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | Award not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in field | |
| Not met | Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements | |
| Not met | Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements | |
| Not met | Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements | |
| Not met | Claimed but evidence does not support criterion requirements | |
| Not met | Record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
