EB-1ASoftware engineeringEmployerDecided December 2023Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
DEC122023_02B2203
Original contributionsNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A software engineer, sponsored by an AI and language technology company, sought extraordinary ability classification, with five criteria claimed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions not shown to be of major significance, declining to reach two further claimed criteria, and noting the record did not show sustained acclaim.
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
- Original contributions · Letters and patents did not show contributions of major significance to the field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Original contributions | Not met | Letters and patents did not show contributions of major significance to the field. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; not reached because three initial criteria could not be met. |
 Leading or critical role | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; not reached because three initial criteria could not be met. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Formal final merits determination was reserved, but the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.