EB-1AElectrical and electronic engineeringIndividualDecided November 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
NOV242020_09B2203
JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A computational imaging researcher and hardware engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found three met: judging, scholarly articles and original contributions. It dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the record showed transitory recognition from graduate research rather than sustained acclaim.
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 · Director found it met and the AAO agreed.
- Original contributions · Heavy citation and media attention to his projects satisfied the criterion on appeal.
- Scholarly articles · Director found the sixth criterion met and the AAO agreed.
What was missing
- Awards · Claimed initially but not contested on appeal, so treated as abandoned.
- Membership · Associations have tens of thousands of members and are not restrictive; he is an early career member.
- Published material · Claimed initially but not contested on appeal, so treated as abandoned.
- Final merits · Significant graduate-era work shown, but sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not established.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Director found it met and the AAO agreed. |
 Original contributions | Met | Heavy citation and media attention to his projects satisfied the criterion on appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found the sixth criterion met and the AAO agreed. |
 Awards | Not met | Claimed initially but not contested on appeal, so treated as abandoned. |
 Membership | Not met | Associations have tens of thousands of members and are not restrictive; he is an early career member. |
 Published material | Not met | Claimed initially but not contested on appeal, so treated as abandoned. |
 Final merits | Not met | Significant graduate-era work shown, but sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing were not established. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.