EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided December 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC012025_01B2203
Leading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metJudgingClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
Technology professional claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner asserted five criteria on appeal, three on merit review: original contributions, leading role, and published material. AAO affirmed denial, finding contributions lack specificity and field-wide impact, and leading role lacks hierarchy detail. Failed to meet required minimum three criteria.
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
- Leading or critical role · Letters lack detail on role hierarchy and organization distinction
- Original contributions · Apps lack specificity on implementation scope and field-wide impact
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Letters lack detail on role hierarchy and organization distinction |
 Original contributions | Not met | Apps lack specificity on implementation scope and field-wide impact |
 Judging | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed on appeal |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Failed initial evidence threshold; merits not reached |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.