EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided August 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG112025_02B2203
High salaryMetLeading or critical roleMetOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Search engine optimizer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria, with service center finding only two met. On appeal, petitioner pursued scholarly articles claim based on published book, which AAO rejected as not constituting scholarly articles. Unable to meet three-criterion minimum, appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.
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 · Service center found petitioner commanded high salary or renumeration in field
- Leading or critical role · Service center found petitioner performed leading or critical role for distinguished organization
What was missing
- Original contributions · Petitioner waived claim on appeal; did not contest service center conclusion
- Published material · Petitioner waived claim on appeal; did not contest service center conclusion
- Scholarly articles · Book does not constitute scholarly articles in plain language sense; not academic in nature
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Met | Service center found petitioner commanded high salary or renumeration in field |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Service center found petitioner performed leading or critical role for distinguished organization |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner waived claim on appeal; did not contest service center conclusion |
 Published material | Not met | Petitioner waived claim on appeal; did not contest service center conclusion |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Book does not constitute scholarly articles in plain language sense; not academic in nature |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Did not reach final merits; petitioner failed to meet three criteria minimum |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.