EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR212024_03B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.
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 · Petitioner demonstrated service as judge or evaluator of work of others in field
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in field; Director determination withdrawn
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award established
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner failed to establish that department or establishment has distinguished reputation
- Original contributions · Petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance; citation comparisons and aggregate numbers do not establish major significance
- Published material · Website technologyreview.com does not qualify as professional or major trade publication or major medium
- Final merits · Petitioner met only two of required three criteria and record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner demonstrated service as judge or evaluator of work of others in field |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner demonstrated authorship of scholarly articles in field; Director determination withdrawn |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award established |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner failed to establish that department or establishment has distinguished reputation |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance; citation comparisons and aggregate numbers do not establish major significance |
 Published material | Not met | Website technologyreview.com does not qualify as professional or major trade publication or major medium |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner met only two of required three criteria and record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.