Published AAO appeal decisions

Software developer sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. Claimed software engineering work for US company had substantial merit and national importance. AAO held proposed endeavor lacked specificity and national importance; no prospective impact beyond employer and clients; first prong of Dhanasar failed.

A software engineer with ten years of experience sought an EB-2 national interest waiver for work in cloud security and big data analytics. The AAO affirmed denial, finding his proposed endeavor lacked national importance because he provided no specific evidence of prospective impact extending beyond his own company or immediate clients to the broader industry or economy.

Software engineering manager self-employed. Claimed extraordinary ability via original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. AAO upheld three criteria met but found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of placement in top small percentage, dismissing appeal.

Software engineer director at e-commerce company seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met high salary and leading role criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found no evidence contributions impacted field broadly or were recognized as majorly significant beyond employer's internal benefit.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

Senior mobile applications developer claimed extraordinary ability via seven criteria. Failed membership, published material, judging, artistic display, and salary criteria. Did not reach leading role or original contributions claims. Record lacks sustained acclaim and top-tier status for developer.

An IT executive with a long career in offshore outsourcing, sponsored by a company, claimed five regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the leading role criterion satisfied, with the remaining analyzed criteria rejected, so sustained acclaim was not established.