Published AAO appeal decisions

Product manager with doctorate in robotics and AI sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met (awards, scholarly articles, leading role) but final merits analysis showed achievements insufficient for sustained national/international acclaim at top of field level.

Network communications professional claimed eight criteria for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted three additional criteria on appeal but failed to overcome deficiencies in evidence or explain how Director erred. AAO held petitioner did not meet the extra criteria and lacked sustained acclaim for top-of-field status.

An assistant professor of computer science sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found he met only the scholarly articles criterion, not the required three criteria, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability at the top of his field, dismissing the appeal.

An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

An AI technology entrepreneur and CEO sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two of five claimed criteria met; the AAO found a third criterion satisfied (original contributions through patents). The AAO concluded the petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and exceptional status in the field, sustaining the appeal.

Information technology professional specializing in cloud computing and email security met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Recent media recognition and publication history do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field.

Software engineer employed by online marketplace seeks EB-1A. Met judging and high salary criteria but only two of three required. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of software engineering.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.

Computer scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, meeting judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance or leading role, not reaching three-criterion threshold for final merits consideration.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.

Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A professional in secure wireless communication claimed extraordinary ability as self-petitioner. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position within small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Self-represented computer scientist with Master's degree in Computer Science sought EB-1A in computer networking and network security. Failed awards criterion and membership criterion based on UPE affiliation. Final merits analysis found achievements do not establish sustained acclaim at highest level.

Computer scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed achievement through three awards from the early 1990s and high salary. AAO found awards limited by age eligibility, temporally distant, and withdrawn salary claim insufficient. Overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Scientist in optical engineering sought extraordinary ability classification. Failed to establish nationally recognized awards or original contributions of major significance. Did not meet three required criteria or demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Technology professional petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as computer scientist based on employer awards and IEEE membership. AAO held employer awards reflect internal recognition only, not nationally recognized prizes; IEEE membership requires education, not outstanding achievement. Evidence insufficient for top-level sustained acclaim.

System analyst and director of applied clinical informatics sponsored by employer. Counsel claimed beneficiary earned prestigious prizes and awards; AAO found bonuses and incentives do not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized awards. Evidence shows talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

IT educator and consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted certificates, CompTIA membership, articles, recommendation letters, and commercial success evidence. AAO found none met regulatory criteria; evidence demonstrated commendable local contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Senior software engineer claiming extraordinary ability in sciences based on technical contributions and NATO workshop participation. AAO held no major award and no three criteria satisfied. Evidence shows talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or position in top small percentage required for EB-1A.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.