Published AAO appeal decisions

Technology company petitioned for senior director in customer experience as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer established at least three evidentiary criteria, but AAO found limited, recent evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field; appeal dismissed.

A marketing director for a luxury resort wear company sought extraordinary ability classification through employer petition. Claimant submitted five criteria but failed three regarding awards, publications, and critical role. AAO declined final merits review after finding insufficient initial evidence threshold satisfaction.

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

Employer sponsored beneficiary in business field for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: beneficiary did not receive major internationally recognized award individually, and record did not satisfy three of ten criteria. Award granted to employer, not beneficiary. Overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Investment firm petitioned for investment banking executive beneficiary claiming six criteria. AAO found at most one criterion met and rejected the director's published material finding, concluding petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or the three-criterion threshold.

Beauty products company petitioned for executive with extraordinary ability in business. Although the beneficiary met published material and leading role criteria, she failed to establish three total criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

SAP planning specialist employed by biopharmaceutical manufacturer claimed four additional criteria beyond two initially found met. AAO rejected awards, membership, and high salary findings; rejected final merits step finding insufficient sustained acclaim or position at top of field.

An employer petitioned for O-1A classification for a chief executive officer in culinary development. AAO affirmed revocation of initial approval, finding beneficiary failed to meet extraordinary ability criteria. Award lacked documentation of national or international recognition; business contributions did not demonstrate major significance.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

A humanitarian aid organization petitioned for beneficiary co-founder of human rights organizations in Nigeria. Director found one criterion met; beneficiary met only leading or critical role. Appeals of awards and published material criteria failed. AAO dismissed for meeting only one of three required criteria.

Restaurant worker claimed extraordinary ability through employer accolades and other criteria. AAO held that restaurant rankings and awards do not satisfy the awards criterion, which requires personal documentation of excellence. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed.

Urban developer sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eligibility under awards criterion, arguing event venue selection constituted national acclaim award. AAO rejected argument, holding awards must be personally received by alien not derived from organizational affiliation, and found evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Business professional's petition for extraordinary ability lacked extensive documentation of sustained acclaim. Beneficiary claimed to meet at least three regulatory criteria but petitioner failed to establish major award or comparable evidence of highest tier recognition.

A businessman in concrete technology claimed extraordinary ability through family honors, association membership, and published material. The AAO found family honors do not apply to petitioner, membership criteria unmet, articles insufficient, and aggregate evidence insufficient to establish top-level sustained acclaim.

Entertainment company petitioner sought classification for beneficiary Vice President as extraordinary ability immigrant. AAO affirmed denial, finding beneficiary failed to meet any of five claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

Project management professional sought EB-1A classification through employer petition. Petitioner claimed awards and professional association membership. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition and membership did not reflect outstanding achievement. Evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Winemaker sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found awards ineligible as beneficiary was not named recipient, published material did not focus on beneficiary, but judging criterion met. Overall, evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in wine field.

Business strategist and developer claimed extraordinary ability in strategic brand management. AAO found evidence of talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-level status. Awards, publications, and influence claims all inadequately documented.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Commercial printing company petitioner seeking classification for beneficiary in business. Claimed beneficiary won prestigious awards and selections; AAO found special assignments and cadet-level awards lack required national or international recognition. Evidence insufficient to show extraordinary ability among small percentage at top of field.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

Inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met two criteria but required three; evidence of patented inventions lacked corporate confirmation of national impact and sustained implementation.

Employer petitioned for beneficiary, senior business executive in sales and marketing, for extraordinary ability. AAO rejected company awards and comparable evidence claim under regulation inapplicable to business field. Multiple applicable criteria existed; evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria.