Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided May 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

MAY052026_01B2203

High salaryMetJudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

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

CriterionReadingWhy
High salaryMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
JudgingMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
Original contributionsMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
Scholarly articlesMetService center found it satisfied and the decision does not disturb that finding.
AwardsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as a criterion; the fellowship was weighed only within the final merits step.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as a criterion; the media coverage was weighed only within the final merits step.
Final meritsNot metEvidence 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.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.