All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. Although the Petitioner satisfied three criteria (judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role), the evidence was deemed insufficient. His judging activity (reviewing a couple of articles and a 2023 contest) was too limited and recent. His 'moderate' number of scholarly articles lacked evidence of impact (e.g., journal ranking, citation count). His CEO role in a new startup did not demonstrate a distinguished reputation or broader recognition. Other claims, such as a 'Engineer of the Year' title, were found to be professional credentials rather than awards, and venture capital funding was not considered a recognized prize.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the Petitioner only met the 'judging' criterion. The 'original contributions of major significance' criterion was not met as the Petitioner's product development work, guest lecture, book, and financial work were not shown to have had substantial influence beyond his employers or clients, nor were they considered to be of major significance in the field. The 'scholarly articles' criterion was not met because the submitted book was not considered a scholarly article and was not shown to be published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media for learned persons. The AAO also noted that the Petitioner did not demonstrate national or international acclaim or that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.