How did this appeal end?

The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.

Did the case reach the final-merits stage?

Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.

appeal sustainedIT20246 criteria counted

Software Development (specifically 3D digital scanning and dental scanning equipment)

AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A talent visa

Updated: September 10, 2026Author: Alina Kanametova

This is a real, anonymized AAO appeal decision on the EB-1A immigrant visa, in the field of Software Development (specifically 3D digital scanning and dental scanning equipment) (IT), 2024. The appeal was appeal sustained, and on the final-merits determination the petitioner met the standard. Of the regulatory criteria, 6 were counted: Awards, Published material about you, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration, Commercial success.

What this case shows

Bottom line: the appeal was sustained - a rare outcome in the appeals base. Of the 6 EB-1A criteria claimed, 6 were counted. The petitioner also passed the final-merits totality assessment - both the criteria and the overall extraordinary-ability standard.

EB-1A criteria in this case

Awardscounted
Membershipnot claimed
Published material about youcounted
Judgingnot claimed
Original contributioncounted
Scholarly authorshipnot claimed
Exhibitionsnot claimed
Leading rolecounted
High remunerationcounted
Commercial successcounted
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)
Original contribution	counted	11 of 55 (20%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Leading role	counted	22 of 41 (54%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
High remuneration	counted	18 of 36 (50%)	breakdowns for this criterion (7)
Commercial success	counted	1 of 3 (33%)	-

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

How to read this case

No claimed criterion here is marked "not counted", and the petitioner passed the final-merits totality assessment - one of the rare winning outcomes in the base (AAO appeals are sustained in roughly 3% of cases). Study which criteria were counted and compare them with your own evidence set.

From the AAO decision (source, EN)

The Director concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the Petitioner had reached the top of his field and achieved sustained national or international acclaim, despite meeting initial evidentiary requirements for awards, published material, and leading roles.

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 December 9, 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: 6, counted: 6 (Awards, Published material about you, Original contribution, Leading role, High remuneration, Commercial success).
How did this appeal end?: The appeal was sustained - the denial was overturned in the petitioner's favor. A rare outcome: about 3% of our base.
Did the case reach the final-merits stage?: Yes, and on the totality assessment the petitioner met the extraordinary-ability standard.

Terms in this case:RFE (request for evidence)final merits AAO (appeals office)

All EB-1A appeals O-1 / EB-1A criteria Analyze my case Which visa fits

Similar appeals

Same outcome in other fields

Talent visa for IT What is the US talent visa

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.