Published AAO appeal decisions

AI researcher employed by data and news company met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, high salary. Final merits analysis found no sustained national or international acclaim. Citation counts and letter writers' conclusions not supported by corroborating documentary evidence of field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Semiconductor research engineer sought NIW for EB-2 advanced degree. Petitioner demonstrated advanced degree but failed to establish national importance of proposed digital hardware and semiconductor memory engineering work. AAO found work lacked sufficient prospective impact on field or U.S. economy broadly and provided no evidence of substantial job creation or economic effects.

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.

Computer science researcher sought national interest waiver for EB-2. Petitioner claimed substantial merit and national importance of system software research, capability to advance it, and favorable balance for U.S. benefit. AAO sustained, finding all three Dhanasar prongs met based on documented research impact and expertise.

Software engineer employed by online marketplace seeks EB-1A. Met judging and high salary criteria but only two of three required. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of software engineering.

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 engineering researcher with a Ph.D. sought a national interest waiver under Dhanasar. The AAO found his proposed high-performance computing research had substantial merit and national importance but that he failed the second prong, having not demonstrated sufficient impact or interest among peers, and thus dismissed the appeal.

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.

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.

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.

Post-doctoral researcher in computer-aided drug discovery sought EB-2 with national interest waiver. AAO found proposed research had substantial merit and national importance but dismissed appeal, holding petitioner not well-positioned to advance business endeavor; insufficient evidence of company interest or investor support.

Research and development engineer sought EB-2 national interest waiver. Petitioner established advanced degree and was well positioned to advance proposed engineering and software work. However, failed to demonstrate prospective impact beyond company clients sufficient for national importance. Appeal dismissed.

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.

An automation and optimization supervisor sought EB-2 classification with NIW under Dhanasar. The AAO found he qualified as advanced degree professional but rejected the NIW, determining his proposed SAP project work lacks national importance beyond his employer and that waiving the job offer requirement would not benefit the United States.

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.

Computer and systems engineer claimed extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: leading or critical role and high salary. Did not meet three criteria threshold required for initial evidence. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements.