Skip to content
Merito
← Back to results
EB-1ASoftware engineeringIndividualDecided September 2025Dismissed

Outcome: Dismissed

SEP022025_01B2203

JudgingMetOriginal contributionsMetScholarly articlesMetAwardsNot metExhibitionsNot metLeading or critical roleNot metFinal meritsNot met

Our summary

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

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 · AAO agreed with service center RFE that petitioner met this criterion
  • Original contributions · Patent application established original contribution; service center found this in RFE
  • Scholarly articles · Articles have citations and references; affiliated with recognized institution; produces scholarly work

What was missing

  • Awards · No major, internationally recognized award indicated or established
  • Exhibitions · Service center found petitioner did not meet displayed work criterion
  • Leading or critical role · Service center found petitioner did not meet this criterion
  • Final merits · Petitioner met three criteria but final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim

Criteria

CriterionReadingWhy
JudgingMetAAO agreed with service center RFE that petitioner met this criterion
Original contributionsMetPatent application established original contribution; service center found this in RFE
Scholarly articlesMetArticles have citations and references; affiliated with recognized institution; produces scholarly work
AwardsNot metNo major, internationally recognized award indicated or established
ExhibitionsNot metService center found petitioner did not meet displayed work criterion
Leading or critical roleNot metService center found petitioner did not meet this criterion
Final meritsNot metPetitioner met three criteria but final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim

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.