This appeal was fully successful
The AAO reversed the Director's denial, finding the Petitioner met three criteria (judging, published material, and leading/critical role) and passed the final merits determination, establishing extraordinary ability in the sciences.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
A Spanish app developer and company cofounder appealed a Nebraska Service Center denial of his EB-1A petition. The Director found only one criterion met (judging), but the AAO reversed on two additional criteria. The AAO found a major Spanish newspaper article was sufficiently 'about' the petitioner to satisfy the published material criterion, and that the Director had incorrectly merged the leading/critical role criterion with the original contributions criterion. On final merits, the AAO found the totality of evidence—including app download numbers, media recognition, industry accolades, and expert testimonials—established sustained national or international acclaim placing the petitioner in the top percentage of his field.
What worked: 1. A newspaper article in a major Spanish publication (second highest circulation/readership) that discussed the petitioner at length as a pioneer in app development was sufficient for the published material criterion. 2. Independent data showing millions of app users, combined with media and industry recognition, supported a finding that the petitioner's company had a distinguished reputation for the leading/critical role criterion. 3. Expert letters confirming the petitioner was selected through worldwide searches for top specialists in mobile technology were persuasive in the final merits determination.
What failed: 1. Broadcast media coverage did not satisfy the published material criterion. 2. Articles that only mentioned the petitioner in passing were not sufficient to meet the 'about the alien' requirement for published material. 3. The Director's flawed legal analysis merging two separate criteria under one standard was rejected.
Takeaway: For self-employed petitioners in tech, document your company's reputation through independent data (e.g., download statistics, app rankings, industry program memberships) rather than relying solely on influence in the broader field. When challenging a denial, clearly distinguish between criteria that the Director improperly conflated, and provide circulation/readership data to confirm that publications qualify as major media.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- A newspaper article in a major Spanish publication (second highest circulation/readership) that discussed the petitioner at length as a pioneer in app development was sufficient for the published material criterion
- Independent data showing millions of app users, combined with media and industry recognition, supported a finding that the petitioner's company had a distinguished reputation for the leading/critical role criterion
- Expert letters confirming the petitioner was selected through worldwide searches for top specialists in mobile technology were persuasive in the final merits determination.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Broadcast media coverage did not satisfy the published material criterion
- Articles that only mentioned the petitioner in passing were not sufficient to meet the 'about the alien' requirement for published material
- The Director's flawed legal analysis merging two separate criteria under one standard was rejected.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Published material about the person
Reversed in their favorDirector found materials were not about the petitioner, were broadcast rather than published, or did not appear in a qualifying publication. AAO found an article in a major Spanish newspaper (815,000 readership, second most popular in Spain) discussed petitioner and his brother at length and was sufficiently 'about' the Petitioner.
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; Petitioner judged software/hardware projects and an entrepreneurial competition with 700 participants, and served as one of four credited reviewers for a published guide.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metDirector erroneously merged this criterion with the leading/critical role criterion (viii); AAO noted they are distinct criteria requiring separate analysis.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorDirector improperly combined this criterion with original contributions and focused on company's influence in the field. AAO found the correct inquiry was whether the company has a distinguished reputation, and found it does based on app usage data, media coverage, and industry recognition.
Article in a major Spanish newspaper (second most popular in Spain, 815,000 readership) discussing the Petitioner and his brother as app pioneers
Independent app usage data confirming three company apps had between one and five million users
Interview in an app magazine presenting Petitioner and brother as app development experts
Invitation to judge software/hardware projects by an unaffiliated organization whose co-founder described Petitioner as a 'highly regarded expert in mobile tech and entrepreneurial spaces'
Role as one of four credited reviewers for a published guide with included biographies
App downloaded more than 15,000 times in three days; ranked top in more than 10 countries
Selection as one of 10 companies in a prestigious retail/commerce program in partnership with major companies
Letter from General Manager at business process outsourcing company stating Petitioner was selected after a worldwide screening for best specialists in mobile and bot technology
Articles that mentioned the Petitioner only in passing (not sufficiently 'about' him) were not counted toward the published material criterion
Broadcast media coverage was not counted toward the published material criterion
Director incorrectly evaluated the published material criterion by dismissing articles that were sufficiently 'about' the Petitioner and failing to verify the publication's readership qualifying it as major media.
Director improperly merged the leading/critical role criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)) with the original contributions criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)) into a single analysis, applying the wrong legal standard.
Director focused on whether the Petitioner's company influenced the field rather than whether it had a distinguished reputation, which is the correct standard for the leading/critical role criterion.
Completed
I-140 filed
App developer and cofounder of an app development company; former software engineer
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2017-08-21
AAO decision — Sustained
The AAO reversed the Director's denial, finding the Petitioner met three criteria (judging, published material, and leading/critical role) and passed the final merits determination, establishing extraordinary ability in the sciences.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee