Outcome: Dismissed
MAY052026_01B2203
Our summary
A research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.
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
- High salary · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
- Judging · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
- Original contributions · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
- Scholarly articles · Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
What was missing
- Final merits · Evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the very top.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. | |
| Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. | |
| Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. | |
| Met | Service center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as a criterion; the fellowship was weighed only within the final merits step. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as a criterion; the media coverage was weighed only within the final merits step. | |
| Not met | Evidence did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the very top. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
