Good news — this case cleared the first bar
The AAO found the petitioner met the original contributions criterion (reversing the Director), satisfying all three required criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination under the Kazarian framework.
Next step: a full merits review weighing all the evidence together.
The petitioner, a Ph.D.-holding researcher and principal research engineer, sought EB-1A classification but was denied by the Texas Service Center Director for failing to meet at least three evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the AAO agreed with the Director that judging and scholarly articles criteria were met, and additionally reversed the denial of the original contributions criterion based on compelling reference letters explaining the significance of the petitioner's work. Having now cleared the three-criterion threshold, the case was remanded to the Director to conduct a final merits determination under the Kazarian two-step framework to assess whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.
What worked: Reference letters were the decisive evidence: they specifically explained the major significance of the petitioner's contributions and their concrete impact on the field and on the authors' own research, satisfying the original contributions criterion. Evidence of judging and scholarly article authorship was also accepted.
What failed: Not all of the petitioner's own assertions about the significance of his original contributions were found persuasive by the AAO; only the reference letters carried the criterion.
Takeaway: High-quality reference letters that go beyond general praise and specifically articulate how a petitioner's work is of major significance — with concrete examples of impact on the field — can be decisive in meeting the original contributions criterion. Petitioners should also be aware that clearing the initial evidentiary bar does not guarantee approval; a final merits determination on overall extraordinary ability still lies ahead.
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
- Reference letters were the decisive evidence: they specifically explained the major significance of the petitioner's contributions and their concrete impact on the field and on the authors' own research, satisfying the original contributions criterion
- Evidence of judging and scholarly article authorship was also accepted.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Not all of the petitioner's own assertions about the significance of his original contributions were found persuasive by the AAO
- only the reference letters carried the criterion.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Judging the work of others
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO agreed.
Original contributions of major significance
Reversed in their favorDirector denied this criterion; AAO reversed, finding reference letters clearly explained how contributions are of major significance and their impact on the field and authors' own work.
Authorship of scholarly articles
MetDirector found this criterion met; AAO agreed.
Completed
I-140 filed
Researcher and principal research engineer; also serves as chief executive officer of a company; holds a Ph.D. in information science and engineering
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-10-27
AAO decision — Remanded
The AAO found the petitioner met the original contributions criterion (reversing the Director), satisfying all three required criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination under the Kazarian framework.
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.