EB-1ASoftware engineeringEmployerDecided 2005Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
JUN132005_28B2203
Leading or critical roleMetOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metScholarly articlesNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An IT executive with a long career in offshore outsourcing, sponsored by a company, claimed five regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the leading role criterion satisfied, with the remaining analyzed criteria rejected, so sustained acclaim was not established.
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
- Leading or critical role · Current position as chief executive of the petitioning company established a leading role; former role did not.
What was missing
- Original contributions · Recommendation letters show colleague respect but not contributions of major significance to the field.
- Published material · Paid self-promotional coverage is inconsistent with unsolicited media attention reflecting sustained acclaim.
- Scholarly articles · Only three articles across a twenty-year career do not reflect sustained acclaim.
- Final merits · Only one criterion was satisfied, so extraordinary ability at the very top of the field was not shown.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Leading or critical role | Met | Current position as chief executive of the petitioning company established a leading role; former role did not. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Recommendation letters show colleague respect but not contributions of major significance to the field. |
 Published material | Not met | Paid self-promotional coverage is inconsistent with unsolicited media attention reflecting sustained acclaim. |
 Scholarly articles | Not met | Only three articles across a twenty-year career do not reflect sustained acclaim. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in the condensed text; the decision found only one criterion met. |
 Final merits | Not met | Only one criterion was satisfied, so extraordinary ability at the very top of the field was not shown. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.