EB-1AElectrical and electronic engineeringIndividualDecided May 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
MAY282020_02B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A wireless engineer and CTO of a startup claimed three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO found all three met but dismissed the appeal because, while the evidence showed innovative research and citations, it did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the level required for extraordinary ability.
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 · Decision states petitioner satisfied criterion (iv) for participation as judge of work of others.
- Original contributions · Decision concludes petitioner satisfied criterion (v) for original contributions of major significance, citing battery-free phone and camera development and sustained citation rankings.
- Scholarly articles · Decision states petitioner satisfied criterion (vi) for authorship of scholarly articles.
What was missing
- Final merits · Despite meeting three criteria, decision concludes petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Decision states petitioner satisfied criterion (iv) for participation as judge of work of others. |
 Original contributions | Met | Decision concludes petitioner satisfied criterion (v) for original contributions of major significance, citing battery-free phone and camera development and sustained citation rankings. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Decision states petitioner satisfied criterion (vi) for authorship of scholarly articles. |
 Final merits | Not met | Despite meeting three criteria, decision concludes petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.