Outcome: Dismissed
JUN152026_02B2203
Our summary
A senior software engineer in artificial intelligence and cloud computing claimed extraordinary ability and met three evidentiary criteria at service center level. On appeal, the AAO reviewed totality of evidence including technical innovations, scholarly works, and professional leadership. The AAO found insufficient demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status and 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 · SCOPS determined petitioner satisfied judging criterion.
- Published material · SCOPS determined petitioner satisfied published material criterion regarding material in professional or major media.
- Scholarly articles · SCOPS determined petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion.
What was missing
- Awards · SCOPS determined petitioner did not satisfy nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion.
- Membership · SCOPS determined petitioner did not satisfy membership requiring outstanding achievement criterion.
- Final merits · AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | SCOPS determined petitioner satisfied judging criterion. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined petitioner satisfied published material criterion regarding material in professional or major media. | |
| Met | SCOPS determined petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion. | |
| Not met | SCOPS determined petitioner did not satisfy nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion. | |
| Not met | SCOPS determined petitioner did not satisfy membership requiring outstanding achievement criterion. | |
| Not met | AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
