Outcome: Dismissed
MAR242026_01B2203
Our summary
A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.
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 · No major internationally recognized award established
- High salary · Waived on appeal; no meaningful argument developed
- Leading or critical role · Waived on appeal; no meaningful argument developed
- Membership · Waived on appeal; no meaningful argument developed
- Published material · Waived on appeal; promised evidence not submitted
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Not met | No major internationally recognized award established | |
| Not met | Waived on appeal; no meaningful argument developed | |
| Not met | Waived on appeal; no meaningful argument developed | |
| Not met | Waived on appeal; no meaningful argument developed | |
| Not met | Waived on appeal; promised evidence not submitted | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed by petitioner in record | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed by petitioner in record | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed by petitioner in record | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Not claimed by petitioner in record | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Failed to meet three-criterion threshold; final merits not reached |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
