This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to satisfy at least three of the eight required evidentiary criteria. The AAO also withdrew SCOPS' finding that the judging criterion was met, leaving the Beneficiary with zero qualifying criteria.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An AI technology company filed an O-1A petition to classify its co-founder and CTO as a worker of extraordinary ability. SCOPS denied the petition finding only one criterion (judging) met. On appeal, the AAO reviewed the awards, memberships, published materials, and judging criteria de novo and found none were satisfied. Notably, the AAO reversed SCOPS' finding on judging because the record only showed an invitation to judge a competition, not actual participation. Because the Beneficiary could not meet the minimum threshold of three criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching a final merits determination or evaluating the remaining criteria.
What failed: 1. Seed funding from a startup accelerator was not shown to be a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence — press coverage from a single website was insufficient. 2. Accelerator membership (Y Combinator-style) was not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, and the supporting letter merely repeated statutory language. 3. A published article mentioning the Beneficiary only briefly among multiple founders did not qualify as published material 'about' the Beneficiary. 4. An email invitation to judge an event was not sufficient to prove actual participation as a judge.
Takeaway: For O-1A petitions involving startup founders, petitioners must go beyond showing prestige or selectivity of an accelerator — they must document that membership specifically requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts, and must provide concrete proof of actual participation in judging activities rather than just invitations. Venture capital funding alone will not satisfy the awards criterion without evidence of national or international recognition specifically for excellence.
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 O-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Seed funding from a startup accelerator was not shown to be a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence — press coverage from a single website was insufficient
- Accelerator membership (Y Combinator-style) was not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts, and the supporting letter merely repeated statutory language
- A published article mentioning the Beneficiary only briefly among multiple founders did not qualify as published material 'about' the Beneficiary
- An email invitation to judge an event was not sufficient to prove actual participation as a judge.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metSeed funding of $500K from an accelerator not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field.
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metAccelerator membership not shown to require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts.
Published material about the person
Not metArticle only briefly mentions the Beneficiary as one of several founders; not substantially about the Beneficiary or his work.
Judging the work of others
Reversed in their favorSCOPS found this criterion met, but AAO withdrew that finding because the record only showed an invitation to judge, not actual participation as a judge.
$500K seed funding from an accelerator as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence
Support letter from accelerator CEO claiming seed funding was awarded by 'leading industry experts' — did not establish national or international recognition
Limited press coverage from a single website regarding seed funding recipients
Accelerator membership as qualifying association requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
Letter from accelerator group partner repeating statutory language without demonstrating membership criteria
Forbes and TechCrunch articles about startup accelerator acceptance rates not tied to individual membership requirements
Article listing Beneficiary as one of several founders — only a brief mention, not substantially about the Beneficiary
Email invitation to participate as judge at 2024 event — no evidence of actual participation as judge
SCOPS incorrectly found the judging criterion met when there was only evidence of an invitation to judge, not actual participation in judging.
Completed
I-129 filed
Chief Technology Officer at an artificial intelligence technology company
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-05-05
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the Beneficiary failed to satisfy at least three of the eight required evidentiary criteria. The AAO also withdrew SCOPS' finding that the judging criterion was met, leaving the Beneficiary with zero qualifying criteria.
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