EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR072005_02B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Senior software engineer in computer vision sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petition initially approved but revoked. AAO affirmed revocation finding petitioner met no criteria. Evidence showed talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.
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
- Awards · NATO workshop invitation is not an award or prize; no nationally or internationally recognized prizes established
- Judging · Criterion does not apply to petitioner's field; invitation to NATO workshop is not comparable evidence
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner's role as group member at employer did not constitute leading or critical role as required
- Published material · Magazine publication predates filing; fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim up to filing date
- Scholarly articles · Lack of recent citations suggests publication record not indicative of sustained acclaim as of filing
- Final merits · Petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; shows talent as software engineer but not sustained national or international acclaim
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | NATO workshop invitation is not an award or prize; no nationally or internationally recognized prizes established |
 Judging | Not met | Criterion does not apply to petitioner's field; invitation to NATO workshop is not comparable evidence |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner's role as group member at employer did not constitute leading or critical role as required |
 Published material | Not met | Magazine publication predates filing; fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim up to filing date |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Lack of recent citations suggests publication record not indicative of sustained acclaim as of filing |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner failed to meet three required criteria; shows talent as software engineer but not sustained national or international acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.