Medical devices: drug delivery technology
The AAO dismissed the appeal, agreeing with SCOPS that the petitioner had not shown sustained acclaim in the final merits determination, even though SCOPS had found five criteria met.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A chief executive and researcher in drug delivery technology cleared the evidentiary threshold, with SCOPS crediting five criteria, but lost at the final merits stage. On appeal, the AAO weighed the whole record and reached the same result as SCOPS. It explained that his awards, memberships, press coverage, single dissertation review, uncited early publications, patents, and reference letters were not placed in context against others at the top of the field. The record therefore did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the very top, and the appeal was dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (iii) Published material about the person | Met | The Petitioner has published materials about himself and his company, has judged the work of others |
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Met | The Petitioner has published materials about himself and his company, has judged the work of others |
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Met | has original contributions of major significance in his |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Met | articles in professional publications, and performed in a leading or critical |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Met | articles in professional publications, and performed in a leading or critical |
Why the AAO decided this way
- Five awards over two decades were not shown to place the petitioner at the top of the field, because the record lacked the award criteria and judges' expertise, and one award was issued to his company.
- Media coverage was not compared with that of others at the top of the field, and some articles discussed only his company with a photograph of him.
- His judging consisted of reviewing one master's dissertation, and his three scholarly publications were uncited and appeared to concern a different subject than his drug delivery work.
- Although his many patents showed originality, the record did not establish a major impact on the field as a whole, and the reference letters made general statements rather than showing acclaim from the broader field.
- His role as chief executive and co-founder, along with company investment and partnership agreements, was not shown to have earned him sustained national or international acclaim.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009)
- Hamal v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 21-5160, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023)
- Donskoy v. USCIS, No. 21-CV-04757-CRB, 2021 WL 5240224 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2021)
- Kinuthia v. Rosenberg, No. CV 17-10255-LTS, 2018 WL 1243955 (D. Mass. Mar. 8, 2018)
- Jafarov v. USCIS, No. 23 CIV. 3372 (PAE), 2024 WL 69056
- Mishra v. Richardson, No. 120CV991LMBTCB, 2021 WL 1566071 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2021)
- Bodhankar v. USCIS, No. 119CV706MADCFH, 2020 WL 777211 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- Lapteva v. Schuurmans, No. 8:24CV83, 2025 WL 815087 (D. Neb. Mar. 10, 2025)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary