A software engineer, sponsored by an AI and language technology company, sought extraordinary ability classification, with five criteria claimed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions not shown to be of major significance, declining to reach two further claimed criteria, and noting the record did not show sustained acclaim.

Petitioner sought EB-1A classification but failed to establish three qualifying criteria. AAO applied two-part Kazarian test, counting evidence and conducting final merits review. Finding that petitioner had not achieved sustained national or international acclaim among the very top of field, the appeal was dismissed.

Horse breeding business petitioned for stallion manager as O-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but AAO found only one met. Comparable evidence for awards criterion rejected because petitioner failed to show criterion does not apply to occupation. Appeal dismissed.

A geologist employed by a law firm petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and published material. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that she represents the top small percentage of her field.