Outcome: Dismissed
NOV272020_02B2203
Our summary
Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.
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 participated as judge of work in field.
- Scholarly articles · Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications.
What was missing
- Awards · No major, internationally recognized award established.
- Original contributions · Proposed legal revisions not implemented; no contribution demonstrated.
- Published material · Published material not about petitioner; articles either quotations or written by petitioner.
- Final merits · Only two criteria met; three required. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Petitioner participated as judge of work in field. | |
| Met | Petitioner authored scholarly articles in professional publications. | |
| Not met | No major, internationally recognized award established. | |
| Not met | Proposed legal revisions not implemented; no contribution demonstrated. | |
| Not met | Published material not about petitioner; articles either quotations or written by petitioner. | |
| Not met | Only two criteria met; three required. Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
