Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Computer systems analyst working in SAP Basis administration claimed seven evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding only two criteria met (scholarly articles and high salary) but not the leading critical role criterion petitioner emphasized on appeal. Without three criteria met, petitioner lacks sustained acclaim at top of field despite successful career.

Telecommunications hardware and software producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary. Beneficiary met four regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination; limited commercialization and citations insufficient to demonstrate sustained international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An engineering services company petitioned for an engineer and data scientist beneficiary. Claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) met; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and leading role lacked institutional evidence. Appeal dismissed.

A cybersecurity firm sponsored a beneficiary software engineer. Director initially found three criteria met (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but final merits analysis found no sustained acclaim. Petitioner filed motion to reopen; Director dismissed motions. AAO affirmed dismissal on procedural grounds without reaching underlying petition merits.

A computer hardware and software engineer employed by a development company met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while scholarly articles showed field notice and letters demonstrated regard among colleagues, this did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status required for extraordinary ability classification.

AI researcher employed by data and news company met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, high salary. Final merits analysis found no sustained national or international acclaim. Citation counts and letter writers' conclusions not supported by corroborating documentary evidence of field-wide impact. Appeal dismissed.

Systems analyst specializing in ERP and business intelligence sought EB-1A through attorney petitioner. Claimed four criteria; AAO found two met but insufficient for extraordinary ability. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

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.

Software engineer at memory storage company claimed extraordinary ability based on awards, judging, publications, and salary. AAO found judging and publications met but awards insufficient, original contributions unproven despite citations, and salary merely above median. Dismissed because only two criteria met and final merits lacking.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.