Published AAO appeal decisions

A maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the 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.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

A computer scientist specializing in 5G networks and mobile analytics met three evidentiary criteria but the appeal was dismissed. The AAO found conference presentations, peer review work, article downloads, and grant funding did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found only one criterion clearly met (judging) and concluded record lacked sustained national or international acclaim or placement at top of field, dismissing appeal.

Research scientist in natural language processing and speech communication claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed those two but rejected original contributions claim, finding scholarly work and citations insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

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.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

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.

A specialist in intelligent transportation research and associate professor sought EB-1A in sciences. The petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, original contributions) and demonstrated sustained national acclaim at the very top of the field. The AAO sustained the appeal.

A computer scientist appealed a denial after submitting additional evidence of high salary on appeal. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. Final merits determination confirmed extraordinary ability through demonstrated expertise at top of field.

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.

Global positioning technology company petitioned to classify radio frequency module design engineer beneficiary as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed multiple criteria. AAO held beneficiary did not meet regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

Information technology consultant claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner asserted meeting judging, original contributions, and published material criteria. AAO found none satisfied: seminar speaking is not judging, Oracle guide contributions lack originality and recognition beyond clients, and user guides are not major media. Overall evidence insufficient for top-level sustained acclaim.

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.

Scientist claimed EB-1A status as computational scientist based on patents, encyclopedia entries, and peer review work. AAO dismissed, finding awards academic only, memberships non-exclusive, self-published coverage inadequate, and contributions lacking major significance to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Senior software engineer in computer vision sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petition initially approved but revoked. AAO affirmed revocation finding petitioner met no criteria. Evidence showed talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Computer science assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion through peer review; insufficient to satisfy three-criterion requirement. Evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.

Optical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and original contributions. AAO found judging criterion met but other criteria not satisfied. Evidence showed significant contributions but lacked demonstration of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.

Business intelligence systems analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. The AAO found letters and evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner did not demonstrate he rose to the very top of his field.