EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2017Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL132017_01B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.
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 · Director found petitioner judged work of others as peer reviewer for multiple journals
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner authored published articles confirmed in record
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Letters addressed role for department and projects but did not demonstrate leading or critical role for organization; petitioner abandoned claim on appeal
- Original contributions · No citations to articles or patents documented; reference letters and single independent researcher letter insufficient to show major significance impact
- Final merits · Record in aggregate does not support level of expertise required; three criteria threshold not met
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found petitioner judged work of others as peer reviewer for multiple journals |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner authored published articles confirmed in record |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Letters addressed role for department and projects but did not demonstrate leading or critical role for organization; petitioner abandoned claim on appeal |
 Original contributions | Not met | No citations to articles or patents documented; reference letters and single independent researcher letter insufficient to show major significance impact |
 Final merits | Not met | Record in aggregate does not support level of expertise required; three criteria threshold not met |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.