A senior IT consultant working with AI-driven frameworks sought EB-1A classification. The service center found at least three evidentiary criteria satisfied but denied on final merits. The AAO did not decide additional criteria and dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Communication engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed that petitioner met at least three evidentiary criteria but dismissed appeal, finding totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or rise to very top of field.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the field.