EB-1A Appeals: Software Engineering
Last updated 2026-09-02
The AAO dismissed 92.5% of EB-1A appeals from Software Engineering petitioners in published non-precedent decisions from 2005–2025 (n=40). The criterion most often at issue was Published material about the alien.
Outcomes by Year
| Year | Dismissed | Sustained | Remanded | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 2 (—) | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 2023 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2022 | 0 (—) | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 2021 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2020 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2018 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 4 (—) | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2016 | 3 (—) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2014 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2008 | 1 (—) | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2006 | 2 (—) | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2005 | 7 (—) | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Criteria Breakdown
| Criterion | In Dismissed | In Sustained | Total | Dismissal Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published material about the alien | 21 | 1 | 24 | 87.5% |
| Prizes or awards | 19 | 1 | 22 | 86.4% |
| Original contributions of major significance | 18 | 1 | 20 | 90.0% |
| Leading or critical role | 16 | 1 | 19 | — |
| Judging | 16 | 0 | 17 | — |
| Authorship of scholarly articles | 14 | 0 | 15 | — |
| Membership in associations | 12 | 0 | 13 | — |
| High salary or remuneration | 12 | 1 | 13 | — |
Example Decisions
Sustained2024-12-09The appeal was sustained because the AAO found that the petitioner demonstrated sustained acclaim through his original c
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or in
Dismissed2024-10-24The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary met at least three of the req
DismissedThe appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to prove the beneficiary's personal receipt of any awards. The ev
Dismissed2024-11-21The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary threshold of satisfying at least
Dismissed2016-08-09The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary criteria. The AAO found that the submitte
In sustained EB-1A appeals for Software Engineering petitioners, the AAO credited evidence such as contributions shown to be of major significance in the field (adopted or widely cited); patents or proprietary contributions. Dismissed cases most often lacked that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized (not merely regional or local); published material specifically about the petitioner (not the employer or field generally); that contributions were of major significance in the field (not routine or incremental).
Sample: published AAO non-precedent decisions collected from uscis.gov, 2005–2025. These are appeals, not all USCIS adjudications; approval rates here are not initial-filing approval rates. Read our full methodology.
Get Your Free Strategy Preview →