Business And Social Psychology Researcher

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. For 'original contributions of major significance', USCIS found her work original but lacked evidence of major impact on the field, noting that citations alone (e.g., two papers with more than 28 citations out of nine published) did not inherently prove major significance, especially when expert letters failed to delineate field-wide impact. The AAO also noted that her research on auranofin, while original, was later found to lead to life-threatening conditions in subsequent studies, diminishing its positive contribution. For 'leading or critical role', the Petitioner failed to provide independent, objective evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of her employer as of the filing date, relying instead on self-promotional material and post-filing evidence. The AAO also rejected post-filing evidence for establishing initial eligibility.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, memberships in associations (AAAI, IAENG, IEEE Computer Society, ISAC) did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and some memberships were still processing or lacked supporting documentation. Original contributions lacked major significance, as support letters were conclusory and citation statistics did not demonstrate widespread influence or heavy reliance by other researchers. The Petitioner's leading/critical role as Director of ICT and AI researcher was not sufficiently proven with organizational charts or evidence of the organizations' distinguished reputations. Subsequent citations post-filing were not considered as eligibility must be met at the time of filing.