Published AAO appeal decisions

An AI technology entrepreneur and CEO sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two of five claimed criteria met; the AAO found a third criterion satisfied (original contributions through patents). The AAO concluded the petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and exceptional status in the field, sustaining the appeal.

Information technology professional specializing in cloud computing and email security met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Recent media recognition and publication history do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among top of field.

An IT project manager with a doctorate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met (fewer than the required three), dismissed the appeal, and concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing in the field.

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.