Outcome: Dismissed
JUN082021_01B2203
Our summary
An engineering services company petitioned for an engineer and data scientist beneficiary. Claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) met; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and leading role lacked institutional evidence. Appeal dismissed.
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 criterion satisfied; routine peer review activities met the requirement.
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; 15 co-authored journal articles and conference presentations.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Failed to establish critical role at institutional level; no organizational chart or position documentation.
- Original contributions · Beneficiary made original contributions but failed to show major significance in field.
- Final merits · Record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied; routine peer review activities met the requirement. | |
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied; 15 co-authored journal articles and conference presentations. | |
| Not met | Failed to establish critical role at institutional level; no organizational chart or position documentation. | |
| Not met | Beneficiary made original contributions but failed to show major significance in field. | |
| Not met | Record does not support sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
