Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

University-sponsored global engagement coordinator claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner established two of eight alternate criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed to demonstrate three required criteria under published material and original contributions standards. Decision not reached on final merits assessment.

Business manager specializing in supply chain management and strategic purchasing sought EB-1A classification. Director found one criterion met; AAO withdrew this finding. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published materials concerned employer not petitioner; support letters for original contributions lacked detail and corroboration; record showed no sustained acclaim at top of field. Dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

Attorney petitioner for management analyst beneficiary claimed four criteria; Director found two met. AAO affirmed only two met and rejected original contributions and leading critical role findings; appeal dismissed as threshold three criteria not satisfied.

Strategic consulting firm sponsored senior trade and diplomatic advisor. Three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. Published material and original contributions rejected; articles not about beneficiary, letters lacked specifics. Appeal dismissed.

A consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.

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.

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.

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.

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.