Published AAO appeal decisions

A software developer working in machine learning seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met (judging, authorship, leadership role, high salary). The AAO affirmed dismissal because the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

A site reliability engineer sought EB-1A classification. Four criteria were deemed waived, and the AAO withdrew the service center's favorable findings on judging and leading role, then rejected membership and original contributions. With fewer than three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed and final merits reserved.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.

An enterprise software professional specializing in supply chain architecture sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary requirements were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. The excerpt leaves the status of some individual criteria uncertain.

A software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A software engineer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Awards were not personally received by the petitioner; playing a critical role in an award-winning project is insufficient under plain regulatory language.

Self-petitioner software developer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on membership, published material, judging, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Software engineer petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard. Scholarly articles criterion also failed. Overall, evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Software engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three required criteria. Awards lacked documented national stature, publications insufficient evidence, and articles did not demonstrate sustained acclaim. Petition dismissed.

Self-petitioner software engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three required criteria because awards lacked national stature, publications were not in major trade outlets, and articles did not demonstrate sustained field acclaim. Appeal dismissed.