Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.

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.

Data streaming platform petitioned for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Service center granted five criteria but denied on final merits. AAO sustained appeal, finding evidence demonstrates beneficiary's sustained national and international acclaim, placing him among small percentage at top of field.

Producer of performing arts events in O-1B status sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner failed to establish three threshold evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding ABU award not major and publications not scholarly. Final merits determination was reserved because petitioner did not meet initial evidence threshold.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Investment firm petitions for O-1A classification for external managers evaluation specialist. Petitioner failed to submit required advisory opinion and satisfied only two of eight evidentiary criteria. Missing published material documentation and failing to establish three alternate criteria, petition dismissed.