Outcome: Dismissed
AUG272025_03B2203
Our summary
Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.
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 · Petitioner served as judge of others' work in field.
What was missing
- Awards · Award for teaching role not related to proposed CTO endeavor; lacks widespread recognition.
- Original contributions · Evidence does not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or sustained national or international acclaim.
- Published material · Articles about robotics team only briefly mention petitioner; do not focus on his work as CTO.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Petitioner served as judge of others' work in field. | |
| Not met | Award for teaching role not related to proposed CTO endeavor; lacks widespread recognition. | |
| Not met | Evidence does not demonstrate original contributions of major significance or sustained national or international acclaim. | |
| Not met | Articles about robotics team only briefly mention petitioner; do not focus on his work as CTO. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion substantively. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but decision does not analyze this criterion in detail. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
