Quality Assurance Engineering (Information Technology)
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 Quality Assurance Engineering (Information Technology) (IT), 2024. The appeal was appeal dismissed, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 0 were counted; not counted: Awards, Judging.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 2 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 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.
Awards
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 677 cases and counted in 129 (19%). Typical AAO objection: "Awards not nationally/internationally recognized". Counted when the award shows national/international reach: rules, jury makeup, scale of the competition.
Judging
Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 659 cases and counted in 491 (75%). Typical AAO objection: "Judging not actually performed / proven". Counted when the judging actually happened: an invitation plus proof you reviewed others’ work.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards | not counted | 2 of 22 (9%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | not counted | 37 of 46 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all IT appeals.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The petitioner failed to demonstrate meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the claim of judging work of others was found unconvincing, and arguments for other criteria were not fully pursued or were abandoned.
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 August 27, 2024 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov
FAQ on this case
- Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
- Criteria claimed: 2, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Judging.
- 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
- Computer Hardware and Software Development / Mechanical Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2021
- Software Engineeringappeal dismissed, 2020
- Data Scienceappeal dismissed, 2024
- Improving business supply chains with enterprise resource planning (ERP) softwareappeal dismissed, 2023
- artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)case remanded, 2024
- Computer Scienceappeal dismissed, 2020
- Sciences (Physician - Orthopedics and Traumatology)appeal dismissed, 2023