EB-1ASoftware engineeringEmployerDecided October 2024Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT312024_01B2203
AwardsNot metJudgingNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
No criterion in the table was found met in this decision.
What was missing
- Awards · App feature by Apple does not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence
- Judging · Job candidate vetting and screening letters insufficient; no evidence of actual judging participation in field
- Original contributions · Work significance does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work
- Published material · Screenshots lack URL verification and do not show material was about the beneficiary
- Final merits · No sustained national or international acclaim; not among small percentage at top of field
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Awards | Not met | App feature by Apple does not constitute nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence |
 Judging | Not met | Job candidate vetting and screening letters insufficient; no evidence of actual judging participation in field |
 Original contributions | Not met | Work significance does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work |
 Published material | Not met | Screenshots lack URL verification and do not show material was about the beneficiary |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision discussion |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed in decision discussion |
 Final merits | Not met | No sustained national or international acclaim; not among small percentage at top of field |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.