Published AAO appeal decisions

A data scientist employed at a tech company petitioned for EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three initial evidentiary criteria. Only the awards criterion was analyzed and rejected; remaining criteria were not addressed as the first prong already failed.

A data scientist with a master's degree in software engineering claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that she met only two criteria, judging and scholarly articles. She failed to establish that IEEE senior membership requires outstanding achievements or that her original contributions were of major significance. Without three satisfied criteria, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

Advanced data scientist seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria; three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied the initial requirement but held that totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, top-tier status, or career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Data scientist self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten evidentiary criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Claimed published material and original contributions on appeal but failed to establish either. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner fell short of three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained acclaim required for small percentage at top.

A business data engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming several evidentiary criteria after the service center found none met. The AAO accepted the judging criterion but found membership and original contributions unmet. It dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

An employer sponsored an agricultural data scientist for extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she met two criteria: scholarly articles and peer review judging. However, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and critical role claims were unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence.

A data scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of three required evidentiary criteria. His original contributions claim failed; publication venue prestige, citation counts, and high percentile rankings did not demonstrate major significance or influence in the field.

Financial trading firm sponsored quantitative researcher for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary met two of ten criteria. Petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. AAO held petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.

Data science researcher self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field. AAO dismissed appeal, finding publication record lacks recent work and citation impact insufficient.

Data scientist employed by software company sought extraordinary ability classification. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding the aggregate evidence—including moderate citations, completed projects, and above-median salary—insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

Business intelligence systems analyst and developer sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found judging limited to employment duties, recommendation letters insufficient to show major field significance beyond acquaintances, and no documentary evidence of organizational role or reputation.