Published AAO appeal decisions

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 software engineer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found only one criterion met. Patents did not demonstrate impact, salary comparison was improper, and the aggregate evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or top tier status despite some individual accomplishments.

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.

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.

Telecommunications company petitioned for telecommunications engineer beneficiary as EB-1A. Beneficiary claimed original contributions via dispatch architecture invention. AAO found three criteria satisfied including original contributions and determined totality of evidence showed sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability warranting approval.

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.

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.

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.