Published AAO appeal decisions

Printing equipment manufacturer with research focus on UV LED printing technology seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claims six criteria including membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO finds only two criteria met (published material and scholarly articles); business sales and product certifications lack independent evidence of major significance; articles largely marketing content not independent media coverage.

Technology engineer and entrepreneur seeking EB-1A classification claimed published material, original contributions, and leading roles at distinguished companies. AAO found three criteria met and confirmed sustained national and international acclaim and recognition, placing petitioner in small percentage at top of field.

Product manager with doctorate in robotics and AI sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met (awards, scholarly articles, leading role) but final merits analysis showed achievements insufficient for sustained national/international acclaim at top of field level.

Network communications professional claimed eight criteria for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner on appeal reasserted three additional criteria on appeal but failed to overcome deficiencies in evidence or explain how Director erred. AAO held petitioner did not meet the extra criteria and lacked sustained acclaim for top-of-field status.

An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

Computer engineer and researcher in Internet of Things sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed because although petitioner satisfied initial evidence criteria, the record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

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.

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.

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.

IT educator and consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted certificates, CompTIA membership, articles, recommendation letters, and commercial success evidence. AAO found none met regulatory criteria; evidence demonstrated commendable local contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

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.

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.