Outcome: Dismissed
Sep242012_01B2203
Our summary
A researcher in computer-aided drug design sought extraordinary ability status. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but needed three minimum. Original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and he abandoned claims regarding awards and membership.
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 · Evidence of participation as judge on panel accepted
- Scholarly articles · Authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications established
What was missing
- Original contributions · Articles lack significant citations; letters speculate on future impact only; no demonstrated impact on field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Evidence of participation as judge on panel accepted | |
| Met | Authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications established | |
| Not met | Articles lack significant citations; letters speculate on future impact only; no demonstrated impact on field | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned claim on appeal | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner abandoned claim on appeal |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
