EB-1AComputer science and AIIndividualDecided September 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP022025_03B2203
JudgingMetScholarly articlesMetHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot met
Our summary
AI researcher and CEO sought EB-1A classification claiming four criteria; two were met. Motion to reconsider challenged findings on original contributions and high salary. AAO upheld prior dismissal, finding motion did not establish error in law or policy application.
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 · Prior AAO decision found criterion met; motion did not show error in law or policy.
- Scholarly articles · Prior AAO decision found criterion met; motion did not show error in law or policy.
What was missing
- High salary · Comparative wage data did not reflect petitioner's unique combined CEO and AI researcher roles.
- Original contributions · Prior decision found unattributed data table lacked probative value; publications and letters did not establish major significance.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Prior AAO decision found criterion met; motion did not show error in law or policy. |
 Scholarly articles | Met | Prior AAO decision found criterion met; motion did not show error in law or policy. |
 High salary | Not met | Comparative wage data did not reflect petitioner's unique combined CEO and AI researcher roles. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Prior decision found unattributed data table lacked probative value; publications and letters did not establish major significance. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.