EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided May 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY172024_02B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement 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
- Judging · Petitioner demonstrated peer review participation for scientific journals and conferences.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner performed leading role as department head at distinguished institutions.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored and published scholarly articles in the field.
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award demonstrated; none of the initial criteria included an award.
- Membership · Claimed but not met upon director analysis.
- Original contributions · Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion upon director analysis.
- Published material · Claimed but not met upon director analysis.
- Final merits · Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner not among top tier.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner demonstrated peer review participation for scientific journals and conferences. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Petitioner performed leading role as department head at distinguished institutions. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Petitioner authored and published scholarly articles in the field. |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award demonstrated; none of the initial criteria included an award. |
 Membership | Not met | Claimed but not met upon director analysis. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion upon director analysis. |
 Published material | Not met | Claimed but not met upon director analysis. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner not among top tier. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.