Optoelectronics Research (Electrical and Computer Engineering)
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 Optoelectronics Research (Electrical and Computer Engineering) (IT), 2020. 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: Original contribution.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 3 EB-1A criteria claimed, 2 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardsnot claimed
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about younot claimed
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot counted
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolenot claimed
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
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.
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:
| Criterion | In this case | Counted in the field | How objections were answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judging | counted | 37 of 46 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Original contribution | not counted | 11 of 55 (20%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 43 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 his original scientific contributions were of major significance in his field, despite providing citation records and patents. The AAO found that the evidence did not establish that his work had a significant impact or influence on the field beyond his own publications and citations.
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 May 29, 2020 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 3, counted: 2 (Judging, Scholarly authorship); not counted: 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?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
The criteria not counted here - typical objections and how to respond:
Related
Similar appeals
- Software Development Entrepreneurshipcase remanded, 2022
- Electrical and Computer Engineering / Automotive Glass Manufacturingappeal dismissed, 2024
- Cybersecurity and Computer Scienceappeal dismissed, 2024
- Software Engineering (Technology for self-driving vehicles)appeal dismissed, 2020
- Computer Software and Hardware Developmentappeal dismissed, 2021
- Software Development and Financial Analysisappeal dismissed, 2022
- Film/Video Productionappeal dismissed, 2022