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.

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.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

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.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met one criterion but failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria. The AAO found his overall record lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

Software developer specializing in Internet technologies with nearly twenty years of experience claimed five criteria but met only scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top.

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.

Senior mobile applications developer claimed extraordinary ability via seven criteria. Failed membership, published material, judging, artistic display, and salary criteria. Did not reach leading role or original contributions claims. Record lacks sustained acclaim and top-tier status for developer.

Application developer and app company cofounder claims extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role for distinguished organization. AAO found evidence of sustained national and international acclaim and recognition in the field, establishing eligibility.

Self-petitioner software developer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on membership, published material, judging, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

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.

Software engineer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability through awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO found petitioner met fewer than three required criteria. Awards lacked documented national stature, publications insufficient evidence, and articles did not demonstrate sustained acclaim. Petition dismissed.

Self-petitioner software engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, published materials, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three required criteria because awards lacked national stature, publications were not in major trade outlets, and articles did not demonstrate sustained field acclaim. Appeal dismissed.