EB-1ASoftware engineeringIndividualDecided April 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
APR232020_05B2203
High salaryMetLeading or critical roleMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was 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
- High salary · Base salary plus bonus was shown to be high relative to others in the field.
- Leading or critical role · Director's favorable finding on leading or critical role was not disturbed.
What was missing
- Awards · Petitioner was not named as recipient of the awards, and patents are not prizes for excellence.
- Original contributions · Letters and book evidence lacked independent proof of contributions of major significance in the field.
- Published material · Online publication printouts did not satisfy the published material requirements.
- Final merits · Work did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Met | Base salary plus bonus was shown to be high relative to others in the field. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Director's favorable finding on leading or critical role was not disturbed. |
 Awards | Not met | Petitioner was not named as recipient of the awards, and patents are not prizes for excellence. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters and book evidence lacked independent proof of contributions of major significance in the field. |
 Published material | Not met | Online publication printouts did not satisfy the published material requirements. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the decision as provided. |
 Final merits | Not met | Work did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.