Published AAO appeal decisions

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

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.

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.

A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.

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.

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 AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard.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.