EB-1A USCIS AAO — Senior staff software engineer specializing in · JAN052026_01B2203

The outcome

Good news — this case cleared the first bar

The AAO withdrew SCOPS's denial and remanded for a new decision because SCOPS failed to adequately explain its reasoning, reversed two criteria it had previously found met (judging and leading role) without giving the petitioner a chance to respond, and provided insufficient analysis across nearly all criteria.

1 / 3 criteria needed Need 2 more

2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.

In plain English

A software engineering company petitioned for its senior staff software engineer under the EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS initially found three criteria met (judging, leading role, and high salary) in a notice of intent to deny, then in its final denial reversed two of those findings (judging and leading role) with little explanation, leaving only the high salary criterion. The AAO found this procedurally deficient because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to the reversal, and because SCOPS failed to provide adequate analysis for seven of the eight asserted criteria. The matter was remanded for a new, fully reasoned decision. This case highlights the due process requirements SCOPS must follow when changing its findings between a NOID and a final denial.

What worked & what failed

What worked: The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the beneficiary commanded a high salary relative to others in the software engineering field, which was the one criterion consistently accepted throughout the proceeding.

What failed: SCOPS found insufficient evidence for lesser awards, membership, published material, original contributions, scholarly articles, judging participation, and leading role — though the last two were initially accepted and later reversed without adequate explanation, which was itself the primary basis for remand.

Takeaway: When SCOPS issues a NOID acknowledging that certain criteria are met, and then reverses those findings in the final denial, petitioners should challenge the procedural fairness of that reversal on appeal. Officers are required to provide full, reasoned explanations for each criterion, and changing a finding without giving petitioners a chance to respond can itself be grounds for remand.

For RFE responses & petition building

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 demonstrated that the beneficiary commanded a high salary relative to others in the software engineering field, which was the one criterion consistently accepted throughout the proceeding.

● Evidence that wasn't enough alone

SCOPS found insufficient evidence for lesser awards, membership, published material, original contributions, scholarly articles, judging participation, and leading role — though the last two were initially accepted and later reversed without adequate explanation, which was itself the primary basis for remand.

Find more EB-1A cases with similar evidence patterns →

What the evidence showed