Software Development Entrepreneurship
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 Entrepreneurship (IT), 2022. The appeal was case remanded, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner did not clearly meet the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 5 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role.
What this case shows
Bottom line: the case went back to the officer for another look, not a final decision. Of the 5 EB-1A criteria claimed, 5 were counted. It never reached the final-merits stage: that requires at least 3 counted criteria.
EB-1A criteria in this case
- Awardscounted
- Membershipnot claimed
- Published material about youcounted
- Judgingcounted
- Original contributionnot claimed
- Scholarly authorshipcounted
- Exhibitionsnot claimed
- Leading rolecounted
- High remunerationnot claimed
- Commercial successnot claimed
- Comparable evidencenot claimed
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 | counted | 2 of 22 (9%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Published material about you | counted | 17 of 45 (38%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Judging | counted | 37 of 46 (80%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
| Scholarly authorship | counted | 43 of 55 (78%) | breakdowns for this criterion (6) |
| Leading role | counted | 22 of 41 (54%) | breakdowns for this criterion (7) |
Counted over our base of published AAO decisions; all IT appeals.
How to read this case
The record of this case has no criterion marked "not counted", yet it never reached the final-merits stage. That happens when the dispute was resolved another way - for example, the case was sent back to the officer - and the AAO did not record a verdict on each criterion. Use the decision excerpt and the similar cases below.
From the AAO decision (source, EN)
The initial denial was based on a flawed determination that the beneficiary did not have a leading or critical role in organizations with a distinguished reputation. The AAO found sufficient evidence to meet this criterion and is remanding the case for a final merits determination.
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 October 7, 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: 5 (Awards, Published material about you, Judging, Scholarly authorship, Leading role).
- How did this appeal end?
- The case was remanded: the AAO withdrew the decision and sent it back to the officer - not a final approval, but not a final denial either.
- Did the case reach the final-merits stage?
- No - the case did not reach final merits: fewer than the required 3 criteria were counted.
Related
Similar appeals
- Information Technologyappeal dismissed, 2021
- Computer Science and Information Systemsappeal dismissed, 2020
- cybersecurityappeal dismissed, 2022
- Information Technology (Human-Computer Interactive Digital Technologies)appeal dismissed, 2024
- Business (Enterprise Resource Planning - Business Management Software)appeal dismissed, 2023
- Information Technologyappeal dismissed, 2020
- Consulting/Fundraising/Project Managementappeal dismissed, 2021