Published AAO appeal decisions

An entrepreneur and inventor from Transnistria claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding he failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or judging experience, thus falling short of the required three criteria threshold.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.

Entrepreneur claimed nine EB-1A criteria but met only two, short of three required. AAO withdrew contradictory SCOPS findings on awards and membership, rejected published material claim, but found petitioner met the threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A chief executive officer and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A classification claiming published material, awards, and membership criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable finding on published material, rejected awards and membership claims for insufficient evidence, and found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three qualifying criteria.

A general manager and entrepreneur in China's building materials industry seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria but met only two. The AAO found his awards lacked national or international recognition and his contributions, while claimed, were not proven to be original and majorly significant.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

Social entrepreneur assisting artisans in Pakistan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one. AAO held petitioner did not satisfy minimum three criteria required; appeal dismissed without final merits determination.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

A coffee shop entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed the director's finding that the petitioner did not meet the awards criterion and concluded the remaining claimed criteria were not established. The record showed local success but no evidence of extraordinary ability at the national or international level.

CEO of beverage company manufacturing energy drinks claimed extraordinary ability status. AAO held petitioner satisfied only one of ten required evidentiary criteria (published materials) but failed to establish three minimum; insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim or recognition in field.

An entrepreneur, city councilor and philanthropist sought EB-1A classification, claiming six evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and scholarly articles criteria unmet, reserved two others, and concluded fewer than three criteria were satisfied. It dismissed the appeal without a formal final merits analysis.

Entrepreneur seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for ventures in car rental, used cars, travel, and e-commerce. Claimed four criteria but Director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or critical organizational roles and no documentation of high remuneration.

A hospitality entrepreneur and bar professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The Director accepted two, judging and leading role. The AAO agreed on those two but found the awards criterion unmet and deemed scholarly articles waived. It concluded that three criteria were not satisfied and that sustained acclaim was not shown.

Entrepreneur and business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material about him). AAO rejected awards, membership, judging, and leading role claims. No major recognized award. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial evidentiary threshold.

Sustainable development professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria but established none. Did not prove receipt of recognized awards, published material about his work, or display at artistic venues. AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of rising to very top of field, dismissing appeal.

Entrepreneur in business and logistics sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found no criteria met. AAO analyzed only awards criterion, rejecting them as company awards not individual recognition. First prong failed; remaining claimed criteria not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

An inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, media coverage, patents, and institutional roles. The AAO found awards and memberships met but rejected published material, original contributions lacking sustained national impact evidence, and leading role. Only two criteria satisfied; innovations lacked proven sustained national recognition despite company use. Appeal dismissed.