Software engineering management
The AAO dismissed the appeal after a final merits determination, concluding the petitioner had not shown sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
SCOPS had accepted four criteria for this software engineering manager (judging, scholarly articles, leading or critical role, and high salary) but denied the petition at the final merits stage. On appeal, the AAO held that weighing whether qualifying evidence reflects top-of-field standing is the proper second step under Kazarian, not an extra requirement. Looking at the full record, it found his awards, professional membership, media exposure, student-thesis judging, lightly cited publications, and employer-focused letters did not show a career of acclaimed work. Even his documented high salary was not shown to set him apart at the top of the field, so the appeal was dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Met | met four of these claimed evidentiary criteria: that he has participated as a judge of the work of others |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Met | that he has authored scholarly articles in the field in |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Met | that he has performed in a leading or critical role for |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Met | and that he has commanded a high salary |
Why the AAO decided this way
- Because SCOPS found four criteria met, the AAO proceeded directly to a final merits review of the totality of the evidence.
- The AAO rejected the argument that SCOPS imposed an improper comparative standard, explaining that the second step properly asks whether evidence meeting the criteria shows the person is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
- Two awards, one received as a student over ten years earlier, were not shown to be nationally or internationally recognized, and senior membership in a professional engineering association was not shown to reflect acclaim.
- His judging mainly involved student theses, his publications drew one citation, and letters described valuable contributions to employers without showing recognition in the field.
- Although his high salary was documented, the AAO found it was not shown to be commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537 (AAO 2015)
- Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)
- Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D.D.C. 2013)
- Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
- Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2022)
- Nagaiah v. Allen, 784 F. Supp. 3d 798 (E.D. Pa. 2025)
- Bhanu v. Garland, No. 22-103, 2023 WL 6119357 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2023)
- Jafarov v. USCIS, No. 23 Civ. 3372 (PAE), 2024 WL 69056 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- Lapteva v. Schuurmans, No. 8:24CV83, 2025 WL 815087 (D. Neb. Mar. 10, 2025)
- Guaman Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2013)
- Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973 (1st Cir. 1992)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 F.2d 105 (4th Cir. 1993)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary