EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided October 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT262022_01B2203
High salaryMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metPublished materialNot metOriginal contributionsClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.
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 · Director found petitioner satisfied high salary criterion; no challenge on appeal.
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; no challenge on appeal.
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award indicated or established.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner held leading role but failed to establish that organizations had distinguished reputation in cybersecurity field.
- Published material · Articles referenced petitioner but were not about him or relating to his work in cybersecurity field.
- Final merits · Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of cybersecurity field.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 High salary | Met | Director found petitioner satisfied high salary criterion; no challenge on appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Director found petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; no challenge on appeal. |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award indicated or established. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Petitioner held leading role but failed to establish that organizations had distinguished reputation in cybersecurity field. |
 Published material | Not met | Articles referenced petitioner but were not about him or relating to his work in cybersecurity field. |
 Original contributions | Claimed, not analyzed | Petitioner waived this criterion on appeal and did not pursue claim. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of cybersecurity field. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.