EB-1ASoftware engineeringIndividualDecided September 2025Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
SEP042025_01B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetHigh salaryNot metOriginal contributionsNot metPublished materialNot metFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.
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 · SCOPS determined petitioner met judging criterion; AAO agrees.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner held leading role in organization with distinguished reputation in software development.
What was missing
- High salary · Salary of $130,000 appeared above average but not high relative to others in field; no Brazilian comparison shown.
- Original contributions · Petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions indicate sustained national or international acclaim or place among top of field.
- Published material · Materials submitted did not establish connection to petitioner's work; do not constitute published material under regulation.
- Final merits · Record insufficient to demonstrate petitioner among small percentage at very top of field despite meeting some initial criteria.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | SCOPS determined petitioner met judging criterion; AAO agrees. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Petitioner held leading role in organization with distinguished reputation in software development. |
 High salary | Not met | Salary of $130,000 appeared above average but not high relative to others in field; no Brazilian comparison shown. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Petitioner did not demonstrate original contributions indicate sustained national or international acclaim or place among top of field. |
 Published material | Not met | Materials submitted did not establish connection to petitioner's work; do not constitute published material under regulation. |
 Final merits | Not met | Record insufficient to demonstrate petitioner among small percentage at very top of field despite meeting some initial criteria. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.