EB-1ASoftware engineeringIndividualDecided October 2022Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT282022_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleNot metOriginal contributionsNot metScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.
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 · Petitioner satisfied the criterion for participation as a judge of others' work.
What was missing
- Leading or critical role · Director's favorable finding was withdrawn; short speaking engagements were not leading roles and distinguished reputation was unshown.
- Original contributions · Work was useful to employers and clients but not shown to be of major significance in the field.
- Final merits · Reputation was largely confined to employers and collaborators; top-of-field standing was not shown.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Petitioner satisfied the criterion for participation as a judge of others' work. |
 Leading or critical role | Not met | Director's favorable finding was withdrawn; short speaking engagements were not leading roles and distinguished reputation was unshown. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Work was useful to employers and clients but not shown to be of major significance in the field. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed; petitioner did not contest the Director's conclusion, so the issue was waived. |
 Final merits | Not met | Reputation was largely confined to employers and collaborators; top-of-field standing was not shown. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.