Published AAO appeal decisions

A director of program management in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification. He met three criteria: peer review, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

An IT project manager with a doctorate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met (fewer than the required three), dismissed the appeal, and concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier standing in the field.

A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

Ice skating coach and choreographer failed to satisfy any three evidentiary criteria. Evidence did not demonstrate national or international acclaim or placement among top of field; awards were locally recognized.

Postdoctoral molecular biology researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions criterion. AAO held that citations and journal prestige alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field.

A software technology company petitioned for its senior creative designer as an extraordinary ability worker, asserting several evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and exhibitions criteria unmet, noting the awards belonged to the employer and letters lacked specifics. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

An oil and gas investment portfolio director claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, at final merits the decision held the publication record was too recent and lacked citation evidence of sustained acclaim to establish extraordinary ability.

Law firm petitions for instructional coordinator with doctorate in literature as EB-1A extraordinary ability applicant. Petitioner claimed four criteria met. AAO dismissed, finding none adequately established: awards were mere participation acknowledgments; published material not about beneficiary; judging unconfirmed; contributions lacked demonstrated major significance.

A law firm petitioned for its instructional coordinator, a literature scholar and former professor, as an extraordinary ability alien. The director found two criteria met. The AAO agreed on scholarly articles but withdrew the judging finding and rejected awards and published material, so three criteria were not satisfied and top-of-field standing was not shown.

Assistant professor of anesthesiology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met judging criterion but failed three others. Published material did not qualify; original contributions, though evidenced by modest citations and presentations, lacked major significance; leading role unsupported; evidence did not demonstrate elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A firearms company sought extraordinary ability classification for its chief financial officer with prior international banking experience. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding beneficiary met only two of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

Sports medicine physician employed by medical center. Met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, leading critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among very top of field.

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.

Attorney petitioner for management analyst beneficiary claimed four criteria; Director found two met. AAO affirmed only two met and rejected original contributions and leading critical role findings; appeal dismissed as threshold three criteria not satisfied.

An artist blacksmith sought extraordinary ability classification. Although the petitioner demonstrated three evidentiary criteria met, the AAO affirmed dismissal because the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

Senior research associate in physics claims extraordinary ability through five criteria. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed two criteria met but rejected awards and original contributions, finding petitioner lacked evidence of major significance or sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

A quantitative analyst and vice president at a financial firm sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only leading role and high salary criteria, but failed on scholarly articles lacking major publication venues and original contributions lacking field-wide impact.

A chemistry, manufacturing, and controls regulatory affairs researcher met three evidentiary criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, on final merits the AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her field. Limited press coverage and peer review activities did not demonstrate differentiation from peers. Appeal dismissed.

Software development executive in financial technology claimed extraordinary ability via membership, original contributions, critical role, and salary. AAO found only critical role criterion met, disagreed with director on salary, rejected membership and contributions as insufficient. Dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

Strategic consulting firm sponsored senior trade and diplomatic advisor. Three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, high salary. Published material and original contributions rejected; articles not about beneficiary, letters lacked specifics. Appeal dismissed.

E-commerce gourmet meal delivery CEO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-petitioner showed beneficiary met published materials and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed because only two criteria met and no major award, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A researcher employed as associate director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field despite meeting the threshold criteria.