Skip to content
All EB-1A appeals
appeal dismissedIT20220 criteria counted

Software Development and Financial Analysis

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 Software Development and Financial Analysis (IT), 2022. 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, Membership, Published material about you, High remuneration, Comparable evidence.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the EB-1A denial stands. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 0 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.

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.

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.

Published material about you

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 793 cases and counted in 286 (36%). Typical AAO objections: "Outlet not shown to be major media"; "Published material not ABOUT the person". Counts coverage specifically ABOUT YOU in independent major or trade outlets, with publication details.

High remuneration

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 346 cases and counted in 94 (27%). Counted when pay is compared to the professional and regional average, with a cited source.

Comparable evidence

Across the appeals base this criterion was argued in 64 cases and counted in 1 (2%).

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
Awardsnot counted2 of 22 (9%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Membershipnot counted1 of 23 (4%)breakdowns for this criterion (6)
Published material about younot counted17 of 45 (38%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remunerationnot counted18 of 36 (50%)breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Comparable evidencenot counted0 of 2 (0%)-

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

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria required to demonstrate extraordinary ability, specifically regarding prizes, memberships, published material, and high salary. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

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 January 24, 2022 (PDF, uscis.gov)AAO decisions archive on uscis.gov

FAQ on this case

Which EB-1A criteria were counted in this case?
Criteria claimed: 5, counted: 0; not counted: Awards, Membership, Published material about you, High remuneration, Comparable evidence.
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

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.