Published AAO appeal decisions

Employer petitioned for materials science researcher seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO agreed the beneficiary met three initial criteria but dismissed the appeal, finding the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that the record relied on speculative future accomplishments rather than established current acclaim.

An automotive glass manufacturer petitioned for an employee with experience in judging and scholarly publications in the field. The AAO found the beneficiary met two criteria but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

A physician in diagnostic radiology residency seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two criteria met and concluding the beneficiary lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.

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.

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.

Researcher in life sciences with doctoral degree from Chile sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, original contributions, and judging. Final merits determination confirmed sustained national acclaim and revolutionary research impact on medical practice, warranting extraordinary ability classification.

Research associate in physics seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten initial evidentiary criteria including judging and scholarly articles. AAO held evidence insufficient for final merits determination; routine research activities and limited recognition do not establish sustained acclaim or top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

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.

Professional auto racing team petitioned for an engineer employed since 2016. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field of automotive engineering.

A mathematical researcher petitioned by a financial management business for EB-1A classification. Four criteria were met: judging, scholarly articles, critical role, and high salary. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

A speech-language pathologist with doctorate and academic experience seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria but met only two: judging and scholarly articles. Decision held that two criteria met do not establish extraordinary ability; beneficiary's impact appeared limited to institutions where employed, lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required.

Infectious disease physician with medical training and fellowship sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria beyond two already met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed that original contributions did not demonstrate major field significance; citation counts and expert letters insufficient. Evidence collectively showed no sustained acclaim or position among field elite.

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.

Postdoctoral biochemistry researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria despite claiming four additional ones on appeal. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position among very top of field.

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.