Published AAO appeal decisions

A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

A software technology company petitioned for its senior creative designer as an extraordinary ability worker, asserting several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and exhibitions criteria unmet, noting the awards belonged to the employer and letters lacked specifics. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

An oil and gas investment portfolio director claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, at final merits the decision held the publication record was too recent and lacked citation evidence of sustained acclaim to establish extraordinary ability.

Law firm petitions for instructional coordinator with doctorate in literature as EB-1A extraordinary ability applicant. Petitioner claimed four criteria met. AAO dismissed, finding none adequately established: awards were mere participation acknowledgments; published material not about beneficiary; judging unconfirmed; contributions lacked demonstrated major significance.

Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.

Senior research associate in physics claims extraordinary ability through five criteria. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected awards and original contributions, finding petitioner lacked evidence of major significance or sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

A quantitative analyst and vice president at a financial firm sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only leading role and high salary criteria, but failed on scholarly articles lacking major publication venues and original contributions lacking field-wide impact.

Software development executive in financial technology claimed extraordinary ability via membership, original contributions, critical role, and salary. AAO found only critical role criterion met, disagreed with director on salary, rejected membership and contributions as insufficient. Dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

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 maritime data scientist seeking O-1A classification through an employer (high-tech data analytics company) met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance in the field.

Research chemist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met but concluded final merits analysis demonstrated lack of sustained international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, dismissing appeal.

Biomedical technology company petitions for senior research specialist in cancer research for O-1A visa. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance criterion. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

A newspaper petitioned for a graphics and multimedia editor as extraordinary ability alien. Beneficiary claimed awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO dismissed, finding no major award and only two criteria met, but three required; work shows team contribution, not individual sustained acclaim at field's top.

Financial trading firm sponsored quantitative researcher for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found beneficiary met two of ten criteria. Petitioner claimed two additional criteria on appeal. AAO held petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.