Published AAO appeal decisions

An assistant research professor in business met three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and critical role. The AAO sustained on final merits, finding high citation impact, sustained publications, widespread software use, significant patents, and innovation demonstrate he ranks among the very top in his field.

A mental training company petitioned to employ a life coach for O-1A classification in sciences. The appeal was dismissed because the beneficiary failed to meet the major award criterion and did not satisfy three of eight evidentiary criteria; testimonials and salary evidence lacked required corroboration and specificity.

A humanitarian aid organization petitioned for beneficiary co-founder of human rights organizations in Nigeria. Director found one criterion met; beneficiary met only leading or critical role. Appeals of awards and published material criteria failed. AAO dismissed for meeting only one of three required criteria.

A food manufacturing company petitioned for its beneficiary as an EB-1A extraordinary ability individual in business. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the employer failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions in the service center denial and provided no additional evidence regarding the beneficiary's qualification.

A company sought to employ its managing director, who was its sole member, under O-1 classification. The director recommended denial as an impermissible self-petition and certified the decision. The AAO did not reach the merits, because the beneficiary had since become a permanent resident, and denied the petition as moot.

Marketing manager petitioned by employer for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. Petitioner claimed two regulatory criteria and comparable evidence under letters of recommendation. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria but required three; comparable evidence unavailable because petitioner failed to show criteria do not readily apply to occupation.

Restaurant worker claimed extraordinary ability through employer accolades and other criteria. AAO held that restaurant rankings and awards do not satisfy the awards criterion, which requires personal documentation of excellence. Petitioner failed to meet three-criterion requirement. Appeal dismissed.

An employer-sponsored beneficiary for a vice president position sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found counsel failed to specify which documentary evidence related to claimed criteria, and the beneficiary's professional certification and education alone did not demonstrate he met the required three criteria or achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

Real estate company petitioned for beneficiary as extraordinary ability alien in business. AAO summarily dismissed appeal for failure to identify specific director errors or provide promised brief and evidence within eighteen months.

Urban developer sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eligibility under awards criterion, arguing event venue selection constituted national acclaim award. AAO rejected argument, holding awards must be personally received by alien not derived from organizational affiliation, and found evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Business professional's petition for extraordinary ability lacked extensive documentation of sustained acclaim. Beneficiary claimed to meet at least three regulatory criteria but petitioner failed to establish major award or comparable evidence of highest tier recognition.

A senior vice president seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed eligibility under multiple criteria. The AAO found the beneficiary failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrate achievements setting him significantly above almost all others in his field at national or international level.

Chairman of corporation claimed extraordinary ability in business and argued criteria more difficult for business executives. AAO found membership in professional association did not require outstanding achievement as essential condition and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

A businessman in concrete technology claimed extraordinary ability through family honors, association membership, and published material. The AAO found family honors do not apply to petitioner, membership criteria unmet, articles insufficient, and aggregate evidence insufficient to establish top-level sustained acclaim.

Entertainment company petitioner sought classification for beneficiary Vice President as extraordinary ability immigrant. AAO affirmed denial, finding beneficiary failed to meet any of five claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top level.

Project management professional sought EB-1A classification through employer petition. Petitioner claimed awards and professional association membership. AAO found awards lacked national or international recognition and membership did not reflect outstanding achievement. Evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

Winemaker sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found awards ineligible as beneficiary was not named recipient, published material did not focus on beneficiary, but judging criterion met. Overall, evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability in wine field.

Business strategist and developer claimed extraordinary ability in strategic brand management. AAO found evidence of talent but not sustained national or international acclaim or top-level status. Awards, publications, and influence claims all inadequately documented.

A business researcher petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only two required criteria; evidence of talent insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

Commercial printing company petitioner seeking classification for beneficiary in business. Claimed beneficiary won prestigious awards and selections; AAO found special assignments and cadet-level awards lack required national or international recognition. Evidence insufficient to show extraordinary ability among small percentage at top of field.

Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.

Inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met two criteria but required three; evidence of patented inventions lacked corporate confirmation of national impact and sustained implementation.

Employer petitioned for beneficiary, senior business executive in sales and marketing, for extraordinary ability. AAO rejected company awards and comparable evidence claim under regulation inapplicable to business field. Multiple applicable criteria existed; evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria.