Published AAO appeal decisions

Principal platform engineer in computer science met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. Did not demonstrate national or international acclaim at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An assistant professor in computer science claimed extraordinary ability via membership, judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO upheld findings that only judging and articles met criteria. The decision rejected membership in IEEE as not based on outstanding achievement and rejected original contributions due to experimental phase status without demonstrated major field impact.

Systems analyst specializing in ERP and business intelligence sought EB-1A through attorney petitioner. Claimed four criteria; AAO found two met but insufficient for extraordinary ability. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the field.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

A computer scientist specializing in 5G networks and mobile analytics met three evidentiary criteria but the appeal was dismissed. The AAO found conference presentations, peer review work, article downloads, and grant funding did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top.

Research scientist in natural language processing and speech communication claimed extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. AAO affirmed those two but rejected original contributions claim, finding scholarly work and citations insufficient to show major significance. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three criteria.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

A biomedical software developer and senior computer scientist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that he met judging and scholarly articles criteria but rejected original contributions and leading role claims. The decision dismissed the appeal because fewer than three criteria were satisfied.

Computer engineering researcher claims extraordinary ability. Met only one criterion: scholarly articles. AAO found original contributions lacked evidence of major significance; rejected other criteria. Did not establish sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

CFD scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in sciences, meeting scholarly articles and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required regulatory criteria and failed to demonstrate major significance contributions or outstanding membership, falling short of three-criterion threshold.

Computer scientist petitioner claimed extraordinary ability, meeting judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance or leading role, not reaching three-criterion threshold for final merits consideration.

A software architect consultant sought EB-1A classification with a master's degree in computer science. The AAO found he failed original contributions, scholarly articles, and salary criteria. He provided no comparable evidence under regulations. The appeal was dismissed for insufficient initial evidence.

A specialist in intelligent transportation research and associate professor sought EB-1A in sciences. The petitioner met three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, original contributions) and demonstrated sustained national acclaim at the very top of the field. The AAO sustained the appeal.

A computer scientist appealed a denial after submitting additional evidence of high salary on appeal. The AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. Final merits determination confirmed extraordinary ability through demonstrated expertise at top of field.

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.

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.

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.

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.