DISCLAIMER: The case described below was not prepared or filed by our firm. This case was sourced from public records.
When applying for the coveted EB-1 visa, known as the “extraordinary ability” classification, many applicants face a daunting path through the U.S. immigration process. This visa is reserved for individuals who have risen to the top of their fields in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, demonstrating sustained national or international acclaim. The case of a cybersecurity professional who recently appealed his EB-1 denial with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) is a testament to the power of persistence, documentation, and a well-prepared appeal. This case highlights how the AAO does not always rubber-stamp initial denials; instead, they carefully review appeals and, in some cases, overturn previous decisions.
The Case at a Glance
The petitioner, a seasoned computer and network specialist in the cybersecurity field, filed Form I-140 for an EB-1 visa, aiming to demonstrate his “extraordinary ability” in business and cybersecurity. He did not claim to have received a major, internationally recognized award, which is often a clear indicator of eligibility. Instead, he sought to meet at least three of the ten alternative evidentiary criteria outlined in U.S. immigration law, as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). These criteria include achievements like significant contributions to the field, authorship of scholarly articles, or leading roles in organizations with distinguished reputations.
The Texas Service Center initially denied the petition, determining that the petitioner had only met one criterion—his work was displayed at recognized industry exhibitions. But the cybersecurity expert was not deterred. He appealed the decision to the AAO, presenting additional evidence and arguments to support his extraordinary ability in his field.
Criteria Claimed by the Petitioner
In his appeal, the petitioner claimed to meet six specific EB-1 criteria:
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements.
Published material about his work in professional or major media.
Original contributions of major significance to the field of cybersecurity.
Authorship of scholarly articles in the field.
Display of his work in recognized showcases or exhibitions.
Leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations.
Despite his extensive documentation, the Texas Service Center initially only credited him with satisfying the criterion for display of work at exhibitions, discounting his other claims. However, on appeal, the AAO took a fresh look at the evidence and determined that he also met two additional criteria: published material about his work and authorship of scholarly articles.
The AAO’s Analysis and Decision
The AAO examined each of the petitioner’s arguments in detail. For the criterion regarding published material about his work, the petitioner had submitted articles and interviews in well-regarded publications such as Forbes Kazakhstan, Esquire Kazakhstan, and Tech Times. While the original decision had flagged incomplete translations and inconsistencies, the petitioner addressed these concerns on appeal by providing accurate translations and circulation data for each publication, establishing that these were professional or major media outlets with significant reach.
The AAO agreed that this evidence met the requirements for the criterion, as it was clear that these articles were about the petitioner and his work in cybersecurity and business.
Similarly, for the authorship of scholarly articles criterion, the AAO recognized that the petitioner’s articles, though not strictly academic, were intended for professionals in his field and published in respected industry platforms like Habr.com and Kommersant. The AAO agreed that these writings qualified as scholarly articles for “learned persons” in cybersecurity and business, meeting the EB-1 requirements.
With these additional two criteria met, the AAO remanded the case for a final merits determination, allowing the Texas Service Center to conduct a comprehensive review of the petitioner’s sustained acclaim and contributions to his field. This remand provided a new opportunity for the petitioner to demonstrate that he was indeed at the top of his profession and deserving of the extraordinary ability classification.
Takeaways from the AAO’s Decision
This case exemplifies how an appeal to the AAO can indeed be worthwhile when initial petitions are denied. The AAO’s decision shows that they do not merely uphold every USCIS denial but instead conduct a thorough review, considering new evidence and reassessing previous conclusions. For EB-1 applicants, this case is a powerful reminder that presenting a robust and well-documented appeal can result in a favorable outcome.
For those facing similar denials, this case highlights several critical steps:
Address each criterion comprehensively. The petitioner succeeded by meticulously documenting each criterion and overcoming concerns through additional translations, circulation data, and clarifications.
Include substantial, recognized publications. Evidence of coverage in professional or major media is crucial, and showing high circulation or viewership of the publications strengthened his case.
Provide context for all achievements. Demonstrating how articles and contributions are directed at experts in the field helped meet the requirement for scholarly articles.
Receiving a denial on your immigration petition can be disheartening, but it doesn’t mean the journey is over. Cases like this one demonstrate that, with a strong case and the right strategy, appealing a decision can lead to success. The Administrative Appeals Office carefully reviews each case on appeal, often giving applicants a second chance to prove their qualifications.
If you need help with your case after receiving RFE or Denial, you can book a strategy session with the attorney by clicking the button below.
Comments