EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN242005_24B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Scientist claimed EB-1A status as computational scientist based on patents, encyclopedia entries, and peer review work. AAO dismissed, finding awards academic only, memberships non-exclusive, self-published coverage inadequate, and contributions lacking major significance to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.
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 · Peer review work, though routine in field, accepted by director
What was missing
- Awards · Scholarships and academic honors limited to students or young scientists do not establish sustained acclaim
- Membership · Associations not shown to be exclusive; open to all professionals in the field
- Original contributions · Patents and encyclopedia contributions lack evidence of major significance to field
- Published material · Self-authored coverage of own company does not establish distinguished reputation
- Final merits · Demonstrated talent but not sustained acclaim significantly above almost all others in computational science
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Peer review work, though routine in field, accepted by director |
 Awards | Not met | Scholarships and academic honors limited to students or young scientists do not establish sustained acclaim |
 Membership | Not met | Associations not shown to be exclusive; open to all professionals in the field |
 Original contributions | Not met | Patents and encyclopedia contributions lack evidence of major significance to field |
 Published material | Not met | Self-authored coverage of own company does not establish distinguished reputation |
 Final merits | Not met | Demonstrated talent but not sustained acclaim significantly above almost all others in computational science |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.