A global brand and marketing communications director sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming nine criteria. The AAO found only the leading or critical role criterion satisfied, others unmet or waived, so the three-criterion threshold was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

A self-petitioner in financial investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed multiple criteria but provided insufficient evidence. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, and evidence was dated nearly a decade before filing.

A multimedia artist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards criterion satisfied but concluded he did not meet at least three, treating judging as waived. As an alternate basis, it held the record showed no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, dismissing the appeal.

Airport operations specialist sought EB-2 NIW classification. Service center found him ineligible for advanced degree category due to less than three years post-degree work experience. AAO upheld denial and held petitioner failed to meet exceptional ability criteria and Dhanasar's first prong, lacking sufficient evidence of expertise, employment history, and national importance of proposed endeavor.