EB-1AData science and analyticsIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN022005_01B2203
JudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Business intelligence systems analyst and developer sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found judging limited to employment duties, recommendation letters insufficient to show major field significance beyond acquaintances, and no documentary evidence of organizational role or reputation.
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
- Judging · Work as business intelligence developer evaluating others limited to employment duties; single service does not reflect sustained acclaim.
- Leading or critical role · No supporting documentary evidence of role within organization or organizational reputation; bare assertions insufficient.
- Original contributions · Letters from colleagues insufficient; do not demonstrate major significance in field beyond personal and professional acquaintances; field not shown to be exceedingly narrow.
- Final merits · Failed to meet at least three criteria; evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Not met | Work as business intelligence developer evaluating others limited to employment duties; single service does not reflect sustained acclaim. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | No supporting documentary evidence of role within organization or organizational reputation; bare assertions insufficient. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters from colleagues insufficient; do not demonstrate major significance in field beyond personal and professional acquaintances; field not shown to be exceedingly narrow. |
 Final merits | Not met | Failed to meet at least three criteria; evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.