EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided July 2026Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUL062026_01B2203
JudgingMetHigh salaryNot metLeading or critical roleNot metMembershipNot metScholarly articlesNot metOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot reached / not discussed
Our summary
A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.
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 · SCOPS determined criterion met; decision notes this but reserves any final merits determination.
What was missing
- High salary · Petitioner failed to submit objective earnings data showing base salary exceeds others performing similar work in same period.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner did not meet requirements; AAO disagreed with SCOPS phrasing but reached same conclusion on different grounds.
- Membership · Fellowship-level membership lacks evidence that judges are nationally or internationally recognized as regulation requires.
- Scholarly articles · Articles do not appear in professional, major trade publications, or major media as criterion requires.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined criterion met; decision notes this but reserves any final merits determination. |
 High salary | Not met | Petitioner failed to submit objective earnings data showing base salary exceeds others performing similar work in same period. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner did not meet requirements; AAO disagreed with SCOPS phrasing but reached same conclusion on different grounds. |
 Membership | Not met | Fellowship-level membership lacks evidence that judges are nationally or internationally recognized as regulation requires. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Articles do not appear in professional, major trade publications, or major media as criterion requires. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; decision reserves this criterion pending resolution of other bases. |
 Final merits | Not reached / not discussed | Decision reserves final merits determination; petitioner failed to meet three initial criteria threshold. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.