Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur in mergers and acquisitions and financial services sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO found awards and leading role criteria were not met because supporting evidence lacked adequate recognition and organization stature alone does not establish award prestige. Salary criterion failed for lack of comparative data. Appeal dismissed.

Healthcare payer business unit manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner established only one criterion—leading critical role—but failed awards, original contributions, and high salary criteria. Petition dismissed for failing to meet three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A franchise development businessman sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed ten criteria and demonstrated two: published material and judging. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet at least three criteria, satisfied no major award, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

Managing director of electric vehicle repair and customization shop. Claimed seven evidentiary criteria including awards and published material. AAO found none met. Awards lacked national recognition; published material articles mostly not about petitioner or from non-major media. Appeal dismissed.

Regulatory affairs manager in business seeks EB-1A. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, publications, judging, and high salary. AAO found at least three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Business consultant in Brazil claimed six evidentiary criteria but met none of the three required. AAO found award not for excellence in field, SCORE membership insufficient, and company lacked distinguished reputation, declining final merits review.

A businessperson in Colombia seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy any of three claimed evidentiary criteria and could not meet the required minimum threshold of three criteria, so dismissed appeal.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

A business executive claimed extraordinary ability through seven regulatory criteria, including awards and scholarly articles. The AAO found he did not receive a major internationally recognized award and met fewer than three alternate criteria. The appeal was dismissed because initial evidentiary requirements were not satisfied.

Chief executive seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, awards, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards not for field excellence, judging lacked corroboration, and critical role unestablished. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A business executive in the pomegranate industry filed motions to reopen and reconsider an EB-1A extraordinary ability appeal. The AAO dismissed both motions, finding no new facts warranting reopening and no incorrect application of law or policy in the prior dismissal.

Business systems analyst claimed eight criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met at least three criteria at step one but lacked sustained national or international acclaim and recognition of extraordinary ability at the merits stage, dismissing the appeal.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

A business legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed eight criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the top of her field.

A public diplomacy professional claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria but met only membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner satisfied only one initial criterion and did not reach final merits, as threshold requirements were not met.

Food processing business manager and co-founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found only published material criterion met; one of three required criteria insufficient to satisfy initial evidence requirement.

A cultural diplomacy expert with master's degrees in public administration and peace studies seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner submitted minimal or no credible evidence for any criterion, relying on unsupported assertions rather than documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Product manager sought EB-1A classification. Did not receive major internationally recognized award and failed to satisfy three alternate criteria: awards lacked national recognition, contributions not shown original or major, leading role evidence insufficient.

Operations and procurement analyst from Venezuela with bachelor's degree seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to demonstrate major award and satisfied none of three required evidentiary criteria; lacks sustained acclaim.

Chief executive officer and entrepreneur filed second motion to reopen EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. AAO dismissed motions because applicant neither provided documentary evidence of new facts nor demonstrated legal error in prior decision; applicant merely reargued issues already decided.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

A CEO and founder of a U.S. corporation sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability in business. Although meeting published material criterion, the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that evidence lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place petitioner among the small percentage at the very top of the field.