Outcome: Dismissed
JUL222026_04B2203
Our summary
A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.
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 met criterion for participation as judge of work of others
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications
What was missing
- Awards · No major, internationally recognized one-time achievement claimed or established
- Leading or critical role · No evidence petitioner performed in leading or critical role at distinguished organizations
- Published material · Submitted articles not published in professional or major trade publications or major media
- Final merits · Only two of three required criteria met; insufficient sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Petitioner met criterion for participation as judge of work of others | |
| Met | Petitioner met criterion for authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications | |
| Not met | No major, internationally recognized one-time achievement claimed or established | |
| Not met | No evidence petitioner performed in leading or critical role at distinguished organizations | |
| Not met | Submitted articles not published in professional or major trade publications or major media | |
| Not met | Only two of three required criteria met; insufficient sustained national or international acclaim demonstrated |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
