EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT042005_01B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metMembershipNot metPublished materialNot metOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Computer science assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion through peer review; insufficient to satisfy three-criterion requirement. Evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international 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 · Petitioner established peer review responsibilities in academic field
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner did not claim or establish major internationally recognized awards
- High salary · Petitioner's salary below 75th percentile threshold for assistant professors
- Membership · Petitioner failed to respond to director's request for membership criteria; professional association membership not established
- Published material · Petitioner did not establish publication in major media; Financial Express not determined to be major media
- Final merits · Petitioner met only one criterion; evidence shows talent but not sustained acclaim at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner established peer review responsibilities in academic field |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner did not claim or establish major internationally recognized awards |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner's salary below 75th percentile threshold for assistant professors |
 Membership | Not met | Petitioner failed to respond to director's request for membership criteria; professional association membership not established |
 Published material | Not met | Petitioner did not establish publication in major media; Financial Express not determined to be major media |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not initially claim this criterion and director concluded record did not address it |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as separate criterion from original contributions |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner met only one criterion; evidence shows talent but not sustained acclaim at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.