Published AAO appeal decisions

A software engineer, sponsored by an AI and language technology company, sought extraordinary ability classification, with five criteria claimed. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding original contributions not shown to be of major significance, declining to reach two further claimed criteria, and noting the record did not show sustained acclaim.

International youth hockey program sought O-1A visa for head coach. Beneficiary met only one of eight evidentiary criteria (high salary). AAO dismissed appeal finding petitioner failed to demonstrate three required criteria and thus could not reach totality evaluation of extraordinary ability in athletics.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.

Employer-sponsored Spanish language instructor using art to teach foreign languages sought EB-1A. Met two criteria: judging and critical role. AAO dismissed because record lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Product manager with doctorate in robotics and AI sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met (awards, scholarly articles, leading role) but final merits analysis showed achievements insufficient for sustained national/international acclaim at top of field level.

An engineering company sponsored a thermofluidic and bridge erosion researcher for O-1A extraordinary ability. The petitioner submitted evidence for four criteria but satisfied only scholarly articles. The AAO found the beneficiary's published work lacked demonstration of major significance; diverse skillset alone does not constitute original contributions of requisite magnitude. Appeal dismissed.

Education counseling business petitioned for school and career counselor beneficiary's O-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director and AAO found none met. Letters lacked evidence of major field significance. Salary was average, not elevated. Appeal dismissed without final merits determination.

An employer sponsored a radiation oncology physician for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The beneficiary met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed membership and published material criteria. Original contributions not shown to have major significance. Extraordinary ability sustained acclaim was not established. Appeal dismissed.