EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided August 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
AUG132025_05B2203
AwardsNot metHigh salaryNot metMembershipNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary 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
- Awards · Venture capital received by companies, not individual, and not nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence.
- High salary · Potential remuneration not sufficient; evidence of actual high salary or past earnings not demonstrated.
- Membership · No evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts.
- Original contributions · No published material or evidence of widespread implementation demonstrating major significance of contributions.
- Scholarly articles · GitHub publication does not constitute scholarly article in professional or major trade publications.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not meet initial requirement of three evidentiary criteria; record does not support extraordinary ability finding.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | Venture capital received by companies, not individual, and not nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. |
 High salary | Not met | Potential remuneration not sufficient; evidence of actual high salary or past earnings not demonstrated. |
 Membership | Not met | No evidence of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts. |
 Original contributions | Not met | No published material or evidence of widespread implementation demonstrating major significance of contributions. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | GitHub publication does not constitute scholarly article in professional or major trade publications. |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; disposition on first three criteria is sufficient for denial. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; disposition on first three criteria is sufficient for denial. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not meet initial requirement of three evidentiary criteria; record does not support extraordinary ability finding. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.