Published AAO appeal decisions

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A site reliability engineer sought EB-1A classification. Four criteria were deemed waived, and the AAO withdrew the service center's favorable findings on judging and leading role, then rejected membership and original contributions. With fewer than three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed and final merits reserved.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A software engineer, sponsored by an AI and language technology company, sought extraordinary ability classification, with five criteria claimed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions not shown to be of major significance, declining to reach two further claimed criteria, and noting the record did not show sustained acclaim.

A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.

Software engineering manager self-employed. Claimed extraordinary ability via original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. AAO upheld three criteria met but found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of placement in top small percentage, dismissing appeal.

Software engineer director at e-commerce company seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met high salary and leading role criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found no evidence contributions impacted field broadly or were recognized as majorly significant beyond employer's internal benefit.

A software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

Software engineer petitioner claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability classification. AAO found the awards criterion met but withdrawn published material and original contributions criteria as not meeting acclaim standard. Scholarly articles criterion also failed. Overall, evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

An IT executive with a long career in offshore outsourcing, sponsored by a company, claimed five regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only the leading role criterion satisfied, with the remaining analyzed criteria rejected, so sustained acclaim was not established.