EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided 2016Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG092016_01B2203
High salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metAwardsClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A software architect consultant sought EB-1A classification with a master's degree in computer science. The AAO found he failed original contributions, scholarly articles, and salary criteria. He provided no comparable evidence under regulations. The appeal was dismissed for insufficient initial evidence.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- High salary · Annual income of nine lakhs not shown to be high salary relative to upper end of field's pay scale.
- Original contributions · Letters corroborate employment but do not articulate original contributions of major significance; presentations demonstrate knowledge but not proven impact.
- Scholarly articles · Master's thesis does not satisfy criterion requiring article in professional or major trade publication; PowerPoint presentations do not meet plain language requirement.
- Final merits · Petitioner satisfied no initial criteria and provided no comparable evidence; review of record does not support extraordinary ability.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Not met | Annual income of nine lakhs not shown to be high salary relative to upper end of field's pay scale. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters corroborate employment but do not articulate original contributions of major significance; presentations demonstrate knowledge but not proven impact. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Master's thesis does not satisfy criterion requiring article in professional or major trade publication; PowerPoint presentations do not meet plain language requirement. |
 Awards | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim receipt of major internationally recognized award; criterion not analyzed. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner did not claim this criterion; insufficient evidence submitted. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner satisfied no initial criteria and provided no comparable evidence; review of record does not support extraordinary ability. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.