This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the petitioner met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (high salary and leading/critical role), reversing the Director's finding that original contributions were met. Without clearing the three-criteria threshold, no final merits determination was required.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a senior product manager in cloud computing, sought EB-1A classification but failed to clear the three-criteria evidentiary threshold. The Director had found three criteria met (original contributions, leading role, and high salary), but the AAO reversed the original contributions finding because the supporting letters described impact on individual companies rather than on the broader cloud computing field, and press releases did not even identify the petitioner. The AAO agreed that high salary and leading/critical role were met, but with only two criteria satisfied, the Kazarian final merits analysis was unnecessary. The appeal was dismissed.
What worked: High salary was established through employer certification and third-party salary data from Glassdoor, PayScale, and BLS. A leading/critical role was demonstrated through detailed PowerPoint presentations and letters showing the petitioner's central role developing cloud tools for a distinguished organization.
What failed: The original contributions criterion failed because letters from colleagues and clients described benefits to their specific companies but did not explain how the petitioner's work was significant to the cloud computing field as a whole. Press releases and news articles did not attribute the technology to the petitioner personally. Adoption by only a law firm and a university was insufficient to show widespread field-wide implementation. IEEE Senior Member status failed because the membership criteria explicitly allow ordinary job responsibilities without requiring outstanding achievements judged by national/international experts.
Takeaway: For the original contributions criterion, letters of support must explicitly connect the petitioner's specific work to field-wide impact — not just benefit to the employer or its customers. For professional membership claims, petitioners should verify and document that the membership tier requires outstanding achievements assessed by recognized experts, not merely years of experience and job responsibilities.
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
- High salary was established through employer certification and third-party salary data from Glassdoor, PayScale, and BLS
- A leading/critical role was demonstrated through detailed PowerPoint presentations and letters showing the petitioner's central role developing cloud tools for a distinguished organization.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The original contributions criterion failed because letters from colleagues and clients described benefits to their specific companies but did not explain how the petitioner's work was significant to the cloud computing field as a whole
- Press releases and news articles did not attribute the technology to the petitioner personally
- Adoption by only a law firm and a university was insufficient to show widespread field-wide implementation
- IEEE Senior Member status failed because the membership criteria explicitly allow ordinary job responsibilities without requiring outstanding achievements judged by national/international experts.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metIEEE Senior Member status did not satisfy the criterion because the membership requirements do not require outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts; 'significant performance' explicitly excludes need for special awards or elite accomplishments.
Judging the work of others
Not metPetitioner waived this criterion on appeal by not contesting the Director's denial; issue deemed waived.
Original contributions of major significance
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed the Director's finding of met. Letters showed significance to specific companies/customers but did not establish major significance to the field of cloud computing as a whole. Press releases did not attribute the software to the petitioner. News articles showed only limited adoption (one law firm, one university) insufficient to demonstrate widespread field impact.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetPetitioner demonstrated a leading/critical role through development of cloud computing tools for an organization with a distinguished reputation, supported by PowerPoint presentations, press releases, and letters.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetEmployment certification and salary comparisons from Glassdoor, PayScale, and BLS confirmed petitioner's base salary was high relative to other senior product managers.
Employment certification and salary comparison data from Glassdoor, PayScale, and BLS establishing high salary relative to other senior product managers
PowerPoint presentations and letters demonstrating petitioner's leading role in developing cloud computing tools for an organization with a distinguished reputation
Press releases and letters confirming the critical nature of petitioner's development work for his employer
Letters of recommendation that described impact on individual companies/customers but failed to articulate major significance to the broader field of cloud computing
IEEE Senior Member documentation, because requirements explicitly allow 'substantial job responsibilities' without requiring special awards or elite achievements, and AARP meeting schedule did not specify selection criteria
Press releases and news articles about software that did not identify or attribute the contribution to the petitioner
PowerPoint presentations authored by petitioner describing client identification activities (not shown to be original contributions in the field)
News articles showing adoption by a law firm and a state university, without explanation of how these entities represent the cloud computing field
The Director found the original contributions criterion met without identifying the specific contributions or evidence relied upon, which the AAO found legally insufficient and reversed.
Completed
I-140 filed
Senior product manager specializing in cloud computing
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2021-07-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal after finding the petitioner met only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (high salary and leading/critical role), reversing the Director's finding that original contributions were met. Without clearing the three-criteria threshold, no final merits determination was required.
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