Outcome: Remanded
NOV292022_02B2203
Our summary
Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim 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 · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
- Leading or critical role · AAO concluded petitioner met plain language requirements; employer documented leading role
- Scholarly articles · Director found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding
What was missing
Every criterion in the table was found met.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding | |
| Met | AAO concluded petitioner met plain language requirements; employer documented leading role | |
| Met | Director found criterion satisfied; AAO did not disturb this finding | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal after initial claim | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed on appeal but not analyzed; initial evidence requirement already met | |
| Not reached / not discussed | Three initial criteria met; remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
