Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ASoftware engineeringIndividualDecided June 2026Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

JUN022026_01B2203

High salaryMetJudgingMetScholarly articlesMetLeading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedMembershipClaimed, not analyzedOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

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

  • High salary · Service center found the criterion satisfied and the AAO proceeded to final merits.
  • Judging · Service center found the criterion satisfied and the AAO proceeded to final merits.
  • Scholarly articles · Service center found the criterion satisfied and the AAO proceeded to final merits.

What was missing

  • Final merits · Evidence did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top.

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
High salaryMetService center found the criterion satisfied and the AAO proceeded to final merits.
JudgingMetService center found the criterion satisfied and the AAO proceeded to final merits.
Scholarly articlesMetService center found the criterion satisfied and the AAO proceeded to final merits.
Leading or critical roleClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as a separate criterion in the available text.
MembershipClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but only considered in the final merits context, not decided as a criterion.
Original contributionsClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but not analyzed as a separate criterion in the available text.
Published materialClaimed, not analyzedClaimed but only considered in the final merits context, not decided as a criterion.
Final meritsNot metEvidence did not show sustained acclaim or standing among the small percentage at the top.

A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.

Similar decisions

Decisions whose text is closest to this one.