This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal after conducting a de novo final merits determination, finding that while the petitioner met the initial evidentiary threshold of at least three criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a head of detection engineering at a major technology company with a master's degree in information security, filed for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied the petition after finding that, while the petitioner satisfied four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading/critical role, and high salary), the overall record did not establish the required sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, the AAO agreed, conducting a de novo final merits determination under the Kazarian two-step framework. The AAO found that the petitioner's evidence—including two institute awards of unclear significance, three media articles concentrated in one month, a single judging engagement, one scholarly article, employer endorsement letters, and a high salary—collectively fell short of demonstrating that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the cybersecurity field. The appeal was dismissed.
What worked: The petitioner successfully cleared the initial evidentiary threshold by satisfying at least four of the ten regulatory criteria, including demonstrated high salary, a critical leadership role at major technology companies, participation as a judge, and authorship of a peer-reviewed article.
What failed: The petitioner could not demonstrate that any of his accomplishments generated sustained national or international recognition beyond his immediate employers and award organizers. His media coverage was limited to a single month, his publication record consisted of one article, his judging experience was a single engagement, and his salary evidence did not contextualize him as being at the very top of the global cybersecurity field.
Takeaway: Meeting the numerical threshold of three or more criteria is only the first step — petitioners must also compile evidence showing field-wide recognition over time, such as citation records, repeated judging history, multi-year media coverage, and comparative salary data specifically benchmarked against top-of-field peers. Concentrating evidence in a short window or relying on employer letters without third-party field recognition is unlikely to satisfy the final merits determination.
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
- The petitioner successfully cleared the initial evidentiary threshold by satisfying at least four of the ten regulatory criteria, including demonstrated high salary, a critical leadership role at major technology companies, participation as a judge, and authorship of a peer-reviewed article.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner could not demonstrate that any of his accomplishments generated sustained national or international recognition beyond his immediate employers and award organizers
- His media coverage was limited to a single month, his publication record consisted of one article, his judging experience was a single engagement, and his salary evidence did not contextualize him as being at the very top of the global cybersecurity field.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
MetPetitioner claimed two awards from an institute, supported by website printouts, photographs of challenge coins, and support letters; SCOPS and AAO acknowledged criterion may be met but found awards lacked demonstrated significance beyond organizers; the AAO noted coins did not bear petitioner's name and no certificates were provided.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
MetPetitioner is a senior member of one organization and member of another; criterion treated as met at initial stage but did not contribute meaningfully to final merits.
Published material about the person
MetThree articles published in July 2024 (Digital Journal, IBTimes, Tech Times); criterion treated as met at initial stage but concentrated in a single month and lacked evidence of broader impact.
Judging the work of others
MetPetitioner served as a judge for the 2025 Globee Cybersecurity Awards; SCOPS found criterion met; AAO acknowledged but noted it was a single instance without consistent history of judging.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetOne research paper published in 2024 in the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation; criterion met at initial stage but one article is insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim in final merits.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetLetters from current and prior major tech employers attest to critical leadership in detection engineering; criterion met at initial stage but not tied to field-wide recognition or national/international acclaim.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Met2023 W-2, 2024 earnings statement, offer letter showing $240,000 salary and current salary of $257,300 plus stocks and bonuses; salary data from ZipRecruiter and PayScale submitted; criterion met but insufficient to demonstrate top-of-field status.
Letters from current and prior major technology employers attesting to leading/critical role in cybersecurity threat detection
W-2 and earnings documentation showing salary of $240,000–$257,300 as head of detection engineering
Certificate and letter from Globee Awards confirming participation as a judge for 2025 Globee Cybersecurity Awards
Research paper published in International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation (2024)
Evidence of senior membership in two professional organizations
Challenge coin photographs for alleged institute awards — coins did not bear petitioner's name and no certificates or formal acknowledgment letters were provided
Three media articles all published in July 2024 — concentrated timing did not establish pattern of sustained acclaim
Salary comparison data from ZipRecruiter and PayScale — showed high earnings but insufficient to establish top-of-field status
Single judging engagement with Globee Awards — one instance without consistent judging history
Single scholarly article — insufficient publication record to demonstrate sustained acclaim
Employer support letters — tied contributions to employer benefit but not to field-wide national or international recognition
Petitioner argued SCOPS improperly analyzed each piece of evidence individually rather than holistically in the final merits determination, but the AAO found SCOPS did consider the record as a whole and declined to find reversible error on this basis.
Completed
I-140 filed
Cybersecurity professional specializing in threat detection engineering, currently serving as head of detection engineering at a major technology company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-02-26
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal after conducting a de novo final merits determination, finding that while the petitioner met the initial evidentiary threshold of at least three criteria, the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee