Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

University petitioned for software engineer's EB-2 national interest waiver. Engineer designed web interface for high-performance computing platform supporting scientific research. Decision found substantial merit, national importance of cyberinfrastructure project, strong positioning to advance it, and net benefit to United States from waiving labor certification.

Self-petitioner computational research scientist sought EB-1A classification in sciences. AAO found awards, judging, and original contributions criteria not met. Published material and membership claims abandoned or not analyzed. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A professional in secure wireless communication claimed extraordinary ability as self-petitioner. AAO affirmed director's finding that petitioner failed to meet at least three of ten regulatory criteria. Evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position within small percentage at very top of field. Appeal dismissed.

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.

A medical imaging and simulation technical advisor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found his professional association membership did not meet the criterion because admission required advanced degree and experience rather than outstanding achievement judged by recognized experts, and he failed to satisfy the minimum three criteria needed.

Self-represented computer scientist with Master's degree in Computer Science sought EB-1A in computer networking and network security. Failed awards criterion and membership criterion based on UPE affiliation. Final merits analysis found achievements do not establish sustained acclaim at highest level.

Global positioning technology company petitioned to classify radio frequency module design engineer beneficiary as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed multiple criteria. AAO held beneficiary did not meet regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability classification.

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.

Computer scientist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed achievement through three awards from the early 1990s and high salary. AAO found awards limited by age eligibility, temporally distant, and withdrawn salary claim insufficient. Overall evidence fails to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

Scientist in optical engineering sought extraordinary ability classification. Failed to establish nationally recognized awards or original contributions of major significance. Did not meet three required criteria or demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Technology professional petitioner claimed extraordinary ability as computer scientist based on employer awards and IEEE membership. AAO held employer awards reflect internal recognition only, not nationally recognized prizes; IEEE membership requires education, not outstanding achievement. Evidence insufficient for top-level sustained acclaim.

System analyst and director of applied clinical informatics sponsored by employer. Counsel claimed beneficiary earned prestigious prizes and awards; AAO found bonuses and incentives do not qualify as nationally or internationally recognized awards. Evidence shows talent but insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at top level.

Telecommunications company petitioned for telecommunications engineer beneficiary as EB-1A. Beneficiary claimed original contributions via dispatch architecture invention. AAO found three criteria satisfied including original contributions and determined totality of evidence showed sustained national acclaim and extraordinary ability warranting approval.

A corporation filed for H-1B extension of a systems analyst beneficiary. The AAO upheld dismissal because the petitioner failed to establish the beneficiary would actually perform specialty occupation duties or that the petitioner was the beneficiary's agent; this was H-1B, not O-1A.

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.

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.