EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided March 2021Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAR292021_01B2203
Leading or critical roleMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the 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
- Leading or critical role · AAO found sufficient industry and media recognition of company reputation on appeal
- Original contributions · AAO found sufficient expert opinion letters and supporting evidence of major robotic contributions
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this determination
What was missing
- Awards · Director found criterion not satisfied; AAO did not disturb
- Final merits · Early-stage company and limited publication record do not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top percentage status
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | AAO found sufficient industry and media recognition of company reputation on appeal |
 Original contributions | Met | AAO found sufficient expert opinion letters and supporting evidence of major robotic contributions |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found criterion met; AAO did not disturb this determination |
 Awards | Not met | Director found criterion not satisfied; AAO did not disturb |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner waived this criterion on appeal |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed beyond director finding |
 Final merits | Not met | Early-stage company and limited publication record do not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top percentage status |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.