Published AAO appeal decisions

Health technology company petitions for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Beneficiary met six of eight claimed evidentiary criteria, but AAO affirmed denial, finding evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of technology entrepreneurship field.

Systems development manager in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met, fewer than three required. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A wedding dress designer claimed six EB-1A criteria. AAO withdrew USCIS findings on three criteria and found none met. Published materials, exhibitions, and leading role determinations lacked sufficient evidence. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria threshold for extraordinary ability.

Software development company petitioning for CEO beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. USCIS approved three criteria; AAO withdrew original contributions finding, leaving only two criteria met. Final merits determination failed to show top-tier standing, dismissing appeal.

A petitioner sought to establish extraordinary ability for their beneficiary, claiming satisfaction of regulatory criteria without a major award. Although the service center found three criteria met, the AAO withdrew one finding on published material and found the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

An employer petitioned for a technology entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability (EB-1A). Claimed seven criteria initially; director found two met (judging, leading role). On appeal, petitioner claimed five others. AAO found awards and membership unmet and declined to analyze remaining criteria, reserving final merits because threshold initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

Technology startup founder seeking EB-1A classification claimed eight evidentiary criteria; SCOPS found six met and AAO confirmed leading role criterion. However, AAO rejected the petition because sustained national or international acclaim was not demonstrated, with nearly all achievements from 2024-2025 and recognition limited to startup ecosystems, failing final merits review.

Data scientist in financial technology and artificial intelligence employed as vice president sought EB-1A classification. Met three criteria initially established by service center, but AAO withdrew the awards finding and found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability and placement among the top percentage of the field.

Business and financial management company sponsored beneficiary in artificial intelligence and computer vision. AAO withdrew SCOPS' findings on all four criteria due to insufficient evidence and analysis, concluding record does not meet minimum three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A business executive sought O-1A classification through a technology company petitioner. On appeal the petitioner claimed three of eight criteria: published material, original contributions and critical capacity. The AAO dismissed the appeal because none was established, so the initial evidentiary requirement failed and the final merits were reserved.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.

Software engineering manager in cloud computing and AI-driven platforms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although the petitioner met three initial criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field.

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

Technology company petitioned for CTO classified as extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. SCOPS found two criteria met; AAO found judging criterion also satisfied. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile status after establishing three evidentiary criteria.

Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.

Clinical director in implant dentistry petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found only one met. AAO found beneficiary also met judging and critical role criteria on de novo review. Case remanded for final merits determination assessing whether sustained acclaim and top-tier status demonstrated.

Martial arts academy petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability for Muay Thai coach beneficiary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding athlete failed to meet three regulatory criteria required for extraordinary ability. Athletic awards, team affiliations, and media coverage did not establish excellence or acclaim in coaching field specifically.

Information security analyst IV with PhD sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary satisfied judging and authorship criteria but withdrew service center findings on leading role and high salary; did not meet threshold of three criteria; final merits determination not reached.

A data scientist employed at a tech company petitioned for EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three initial evidentiary criteria. Only the awards criterion was analyzed and rejected; remaining criteria were not addressed as the first prong already failed.

Transportation architect with master's degree and H-1B work history claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. On final merits, AAO determined petitioner failed to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for top-tier classification.

An audio-visual agency filed for a cinematographer and drone cameraman with extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met two criteria (judging and exhibitions) but failed the third-criterion threshold and final merits test for sustained acclaim at field leadership level.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

Cybersecurity engineer employed as head of detection engineering sought EB-1A classification. Met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top percentage level.

Data scientist with master's degree in computer science; employed in software engineering roles in H-1B status. Met three criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's elite despite meeting evidentiary threshold.