Published AAO appeal decisions

Telecommunications hardware and software producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary. Beneficiary met four regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination; limited commercialization and citations insufficient to demonstrate sustained international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An engineering services company petitioned for an engineer and data scientist beneficiary. Claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) met; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and leading role lacked institutional evidence. Appeal dismissed.

A cybersecurity firm sponsored a beneficiary software engineer. Director initially found three criteria met (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but final merits analysis found no sustained acclaim. Petitioner filed motion to reopen; Director dismissed motions. AAO affirmed dismissal on procedural grounds without reaching underlying petition merits.

A computer hardware and software engineer employed by a development company met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while scholarly articles showed field notice and letters demonstrated regard among colleagues, this did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status required for extraordinary ability classification.

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.

Computer science associate professor claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed two were met but rejected original contributions claim. With only two criteria established, petitioner failed the initial evidentiary requirement and could not proceed to final merits analysis.

Chief technology officer claims extraordinary ability based on patents and press coverage. AAO found articles focus on company work, not personal achievements, and patents lack demonstrated major significance in field. Appeal dismissed without reaching remaining criteria.

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.

Principal platform engineer in computer science met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. Did not demonstrate national or international acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An assistant professor in computer science claimed extraordinary ability via membership, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO upheld findings that only judging and articles met criteria. The decision rejected membership in IEEE as not based on outstanding achievement and rejected original contributions due to experimental phase status without demonstrated major field impact.

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.

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 engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

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.

A software architect consultant sought EB-1A classification with a master's degree in computer science. The AAO found he failed original contributions, scholarly articles, and salary criteria. He provided no comparable evidence under regulations. The appeal was dismissed for insufficient initial evidence.

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.

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.