Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

Business intelligence systems analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed judging, original contributions, and critical role criteria. The AAO found letters and evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim; petitioner did not demonstrate he rose to the very top of his field.