Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedIT20212 criteria counted

Computer Science and Information Systems

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Computer Science and Information Systems (IT), 2021. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 2 were counted: Judging, Scholarly authorship; not counted: Membership, Original contribution.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 4 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. The criteria were enough to reach final merits, but on the totality of the evidence the petitioner fell short of the extraordinary-ability standard - 3+ criteria alone do not guarantee approval.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Why these criteria usually go uncounted

The through-line of the appeals base: in 81% of decisions the AAO names the same problem - assertions not backed by sufficient evidence - and 45% of cases are lost at the final-merits totality assessment. Below is how each criterion not counted here fares across the whole base.

Membership

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 496 cases and counted in 58 (12%). Typical AAO objection: "Membership does not require outstanding achievement". Counted when membership requires outstanding achievement judged by experts, not just a fee.

Original contribution

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 642 cases and counted in 105 (16%). Typical AAO objection: "Original contribution: impact not shown". Counted when the contribution’s impact is shown: adoption, citation, use by others.

The IT field in the database: 69 appeals

Outcomes in this field: 1 sustained, 11 remanded, 57 dismissed. How the AAO ruled in this field on the criteria argued in this case:

CriterionIn this caseCounted in the fieldHow objections were answered
Membershipnot counted1 of 23 (4%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Judgingcounted37 of 46 (80%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Original contributionnot counted11 of 55 (20%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Scholarly authorshipcounted43 of 55 (78%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)

Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all IT appeals.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that her work had a major impact or influence in her field, and the new evidence submitted did not establish eligibility at the time of filing. She did not meet the requirements for at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria.

The quote summarizes a fragment of the decision; the table above reflects the FINAL status of the criteria across all stages of the case (including ones conceded before the appeal), so the wording may not match one-to-one.

Full AAO decision of April 29, 2021 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
Criteria claimed: 4, counted: 2 (Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: Membership, Original contribution.
How did this appeal end?
The appeal was dismissed - the denial stands. Most EB-1A AAO appeals end this way (~80% of our base).
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
Yes, but on the final-merits totality assessment the petitioner fell short - the criteria were only the entry gate.

The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:

Related

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

This is an anonymized public decision of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), shown for reference. Not legal advice and not a guarantee of your own outcome; every case is decided on its own facts.