EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided April 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR072026_04B2203
JudgingMetAwardsNot metMembershipNot metLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Founder and CEO of an AI platform company sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven evidentiary criteria and sustained acclaim. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that only judging criterion was met. Venture capital funding, fellowship participation, and other claims failed because they lacked necessary recognition or expert evaluation. Appeal dismissed.
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 · SCOPS determination that beneficiary met this criterion was affirmed on appeal
What was missing
- Awards · Venture capital funding and award nominations do not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence
- Membership · Fellowship and accelerator participation lack evidence that acceptance was judged by recognized national or international experts
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determination that beneficiary met this criterion was affirmed on appeal |
 Awards | Not met | Venture capital funding and award nominations do not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence |
 Membership | Not met | Fellowship and accelerator participation lack evidence that acceptance was judged by recognized national or international experts |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision text |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision text |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision text |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision text |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Failed to meet initial evidence requirement of three criteria; final merits step not reached |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.