EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2015Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JAN122015_02B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot metMembershipClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.
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 · Petitioner did not establish nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence.
- Judging · Petitioner failed to produce evidence of actually serving as judge in computational physics or allied field.
- Original contributions · Reference letters and paper selection insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not meet three-criterion threshold; does not demonstrate level of expertise required.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not establish nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. |
 Judging | Not met | Petitioner failed to produce evidence of actually serving as judge in computational physics or allied field. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Reference letters and paper selection insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance. |
 Membership | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not raise assertion before director and abandoned claim on appeal. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; director discussed; petitioner did not contest or offer additional arguments. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not meet three-criterion threshold; does not demonstrate level of expertise required. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.