Published AAO appeal decisions

A software developer working in machine learning seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met (judging, authorship, leadership role, high salary). The AAO affirmed dismissal because the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A site reliability engineer sought EB-1A classification. Four criteria were deemed waived, and the AAO withdrew the service center's favorable findings on judging and leading role, then rejected membership and original contributions. With fewer than three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed and final merits reserved.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.

A software engineer was the beneficiary of an EB-1A petition filed by an AI software company, which the service center denied for failing three of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal as moot because a separate immigrant petition was approved and the beneficiary became a permanent resident, so no criteria were decided.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

An enterprise software professional specializing in supply chain architecture sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary requirements were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. The excerpt leaves the status of some individual criteria uncertain.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

A software quality assurance engineer met three initial evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. However, the final merits determination found the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner was in the small percentage at the very top of the field, so appeal was dismissed.

Software engineer in Canada employed by Twilio met two of four claimed criteria but not three required. AAO rejected awards claim, rejected comparable evidence argument for awards, rejected salary claim with new evidence, and dismissed without final merits review.

Software company petitioned for product design director as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria but director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding app features, vague judging letters, and design contributions insufficient for national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A software engineer, sponsored by an AI and language technology company, sought extraordinary ability classification, with five criteria claimed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions not shown to be of major significance, declining to reach two further claimed criteria, and noting the record did not show sustained acclaim.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met one criterion but failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria. The AAO found his overall record lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

A solution director in supply chain and manufacturing technology sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming four criteria. The Director accepted two. The AAO found only judging satisfied, rejected original contributions and leading role, treated scholarly articles as waived, and dismissed because acclaim was confined to employers and collaborators.

Software engineering manager self-employed. Claimed extraordinary ability via original contributions, scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. AAO upheld three criteria met but found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of placement in top small percentage, dismissing appeal.

Software engineer director at e-commerce company seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met high salary and leading role criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO found no evidence contributions impacted field broadly or were recognized as majorly significant beyond employer's internal benefit.

Software developer specializing in Internet technologies with nearly twenty years of experience claimed five criteria but met only scholarly articles. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top.

A software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

An embedded software engineer in industrial automation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Claims of critical role and high salary were rejected as lacking evidence that contributions were significant to employer overall or that compensation exceeded comparable positions, leaving the petitioner one criterion short.

Senior mobile applications developer claimed extraordinary ability via seven criteria. Failed membership, published material, judging, artistic display, and salary criteria. Did not reach leading role or original contributions claims. Record lacks sustained acclaim and top-tier status for developer.

Application developer and app company cofounder claims extraordinary ability. Met three criteria: judging, published material, and leading role for distinguished organization. AAO found evidence of sustained national and international acclaim and recognition in the field, establishing eligibility.

A software engineer filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO upheld denial, finding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Awards were not personally received by the petitioner; playing a critical role in an award-winning project is insufficient under plain regulatory language.

Self-petitioner software developer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A based on membership, published material, judging, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not meet three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.