This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of the required ten evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the three needed. The Director's revocation of the originally approved petition was upheld.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The Nebraska Service Center initially approved this EB-1A petition for an IT project manager with a doctorate in computer science, but subsequently revoked approval after questioning the authenticity of recommendation letters and sufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the AAO conducted a de novo review and reversed the Director's findings on three criteria (membership, judging, and scholarly articles), but ultimately found only two criteria satisfied — judging (based on a completed journal manuscript review) and scholarly articles (based on a dissertation published in IJSITA). The membership criterion was withdrawn because ACM and IEEE Senior Member requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The original contributions criterion failed due to conclusory and partially duplicative recommendation letters. The high salary criterion failed because the petitioner used overly broad salary comparison categories. Because only two of three required criteria were met, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.
What worked: Completed journal manuscript review for the International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing established the judging criterion. Doctoral dissertation published in the International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications (IJSITA) established the scholarly articles criterion.
What failed: ACM and IEEE Senior Member memberships were rejected because their requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. Recommendation letters for original contributions were too conclusory and partially duplicative to show major significance. High salary comparison failed because petitioner relied on broad 'all computer occupations' data rather than IT project manager-specific salary comparisons.
Takeaway: Salary comparisons must use data from the specific occupational title, not broader categories, and must account for geographic variation. Recommendation letters must include specific, detailed accounts of how contributions have already impacted the field — not just praise for skills and potential.
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
- Completed journal manuscript review for the International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing established the judging criterion
- Doctoral dissertation published in the International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications (IJSITA) established the scholarly articles criterion.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- ACM and IEEE Senior Member memberships were rejected because their requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts
- Recommendation letters for original contributions were too conclusory and partially duplicative to show major significance
- High salary comparison failed because petitioner relied on broad 'all computer occupations' data rather than IT project manager-specific salary comparisons.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Reversed in their favorDirector had found this criterion met for ACM and IEEE senior membership, but AAO withdrew that finding. ACM requires only a bachelor's degree or 2 years experience, and IEEE Senior Member requires 10 years experience plus publication, neither of which rises to 'outstanding achievements' judged by recognized national/international experts.
Judging the work of others
Reversed in their favorDirector found this criterion not met, but AAO reversed, accepting email evidence confirming the petitioner completed a manuscript review for the International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metRecommendation letters were conclusory, duplicative, and lacked specifics about how the petitioner's contributions were of major significance in the field. Cybersecurity and information systems work was not shown to have been widely implemented or remarkably impacted the field.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Reversed in their favorDirector found this criterion not met, but AAO reversed in part: dissertation published in IJSITA qualifies as a scholarly article in a professional publication. However, the IGI Global book chapter did not qualify as scholarly or professional, and the Springer conference paper was filed after the petition date.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metSalaries of $101,923 and $115,000 were not shown to be high compared to specifically comparable IT project managers. Petitioner used overly broad comparison categories (all computer occupations) and national median data rather than local wage data. Post-filing employment salary not considered.
Emails from the International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing confirming completed manuscript review, satisfying the judging criterion.
Petitioner's doctorate dissertation published in the International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications (IJSITA), satisfying the scholarly articles criterion.
ACM membership screenshots showing only a bachelor's degree or two years of experience required — insufficient to show outstanding achievements.
IEEE Senior Member bylaws showing requirements of 10 years experience and publication — insufficient to show outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.
Recommendation letters that were conclusory, duplicative, and lacked specifics about major significance of contributions.
Two nearly identical letters from different authors, raising questions about independence and credibility.
IGI Global book chapter — not shown to be a scholarly or professional publication; intended audience includes undergraduates and general public.
O*Net and FLCDC salary comparisons using overly broad occupation categories rather than IT project managers specifically.
Post-filing employment salary and profit sharing from 2019 employer — not relevant as eligibility must be established from filing date.
Conference paper published by Springer in July 2017, after the October 2016 petition filing date.
Director incorrectly found the membership criterion (ii) satisfied for ACM and IEEE Senior Member, as neither organization's membership requirements constitute 'outstanding achievements' judged by recognized national or international experts.
Director incorrectly found the judging criterion (iv) not satisfied, despite email evidence confirming completed manuscript review for an international journal.
Director incorrectly found the scholarly articles criterion (vi) not satisfied, as the petitioner's dissertation published in IJSITA qualifies.
Completed
I-140 filed
IT project manager with a Doctor of Computer Science degree, specializing in cybersecurity and information systems management
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-10-19
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of the required ten evidentiary criteria (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the three needed. The Director's revocation of the originally approved petition was upheld.
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