Information technology: software integration architecture
The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that the petitioner had not shown the original contributions criterion and so had not met the initial requirement of three criteria; the denial stands.
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
An integration architect in the technology sector appealed the Nebraska Service Center's denial of his EB-1A petition. Of the six criteria claimed below, he pursued three on appeal, and the AAO decided only the original contributions criterion, since failing it left him short of three. His four support letters described benefits to his employers, such as cost savings and software rollouts, but did not show influence on the field at large, and they lacked the specific detail needed to show major significance. The AAO reserved the remaining criteria and the final merits question while observing that the record as a whole did not support the necessary acclaim, and it dismissed the appeal.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (v) Original contributions of major significance | Not met | The Petitioner did not establish he satisfies the original contributions criterion. Although the Petitioner |
| (viii) Leading or critical role | Not reached | |
| (ix) High salary or remuneration | Not reached |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The Director concluded the petitioner had not shown a one-time achievement or any of the six criteria he claimed; on appeal he maintained only three categories of evidence.
- The four recommendation letters praised the petitioner but tied his contributions to his employers and did not show impact or influence on the field as a whole.
- The letters lacked specific, detailed information explaining how the work was an original contribution of major significance in the field, and the AAO noted that USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements.
- The AAO did not reach the leading or critical role and high salary criteria, or a final merits determination, because the petitioner could not fulfill the initial requirement of three criteria; it added that the record in the aggregate did not support the required acclaim.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Christo's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (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)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)
- 1756, Inc. v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990)
- Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
- Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023)
- Hamal v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020)
- Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
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