Published AAO appeal decisions

A musician sought EB-1A classification by claiming eight criteria. The AAO found one criterion satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. The decision held that the petitioner lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A dancer and dance instructor seeks EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria, but the AAO found the awards lacked national recognition and judging evidence was deficient. Two other criteria were reserved as not dispositive. The AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet either one major award or three of ten criteria, lacking sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A CEO of an aquaculture company transitioning from decades in information technology claims extraordinary ability. He claimed four criteria, but the AAO held only one was satisfied. The decision ruled his IT accomplishments lack nexus to his stated aquaculture field and rejected his scholarly article as unrelated.

A systems administrator specializing in cybersecurity claims extraordinary ability in cybersecurity and computer science. He claimed three criteria but satisfied only one. The AAO rejected his ISSA membership and scholarly articles evidence, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

A Russian-trained musician seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but only addressed awards on appeal. The AAO found he failed to satisfy three of ten criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A software developer specializing in 3D digital scanning since 1998, working as CTO for a major dental scanning company, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found three criteria met and, reviewing the record holistically, determined the evidence established sustained national acclaim and top-tier status. Appeal sustained.

A Kyrgyz history and culture scholar claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found evidentiary criteria met but denied on final merits. AAO sustained denial, finding the petitioner accomplished but not among the very top of the field despite national recognition and publications.

Music event producer claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. Director found only judging criterion met. Petitioner appealed with new evidence on awards, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal: awards lacked field recognition, exhibitions were not artistic in nature, and only one criterion met precluded the three-criterion threshold.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet major award criterion and could not satisfy three initial criteria. Tournament awards in Master division lack sufficient context and do not demonstrate excellence. No final merits analysis reached.

Social media influencer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria. Platform Platinum status is objective threshold not requiring expert judgment; income alone insufficient for commercial success; record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or position at field's top tier.

A digital influencer with content on TikTok and YouTube sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claiming seven criteria, she established none sufficiently. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success findings; high salary and judging were not analyzed. Without three criteria met, she failed the initial requirement and was ineligible.

Long-distance runner sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal finding one criterion met but aggregate evidence insufficient; runner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Though the AAO found the petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary criteria, she failed the final merits determination; her government and youth awards, membership, and modest annual media coverage did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A beautician and eyelash artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met at least three evidentiary criteria through awards, membership, published material, and judging work. However, the AAO found she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranks among the very top in her field, thus lacking the final merits showing required for the classification.

Drilling engineering executive claiming extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held final merits not satisfied; accomplishments lack sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish top-tier status in field.

Downhill longboard athlete from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held petitioner met only one of five claimed evidentiary criteria. Lacking sustained national or international acclaim and recent competitive record, petitioner fails final merits step.

A Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Though three criteria were met (awards, judging, exhibitions), the AAO found the totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or place among the very top of the field.

An oil industry professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria including awards, membership, original contributions, and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding none met the standards; the honorary certificate and professional association membership lacked required recognition level, and employer contributions did not establish national acclaim.

Biochemist seeking EB-1A claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria and failed on original contributions because evidence lacked objective demonstration of major significance, reliable citation metrics, or proof of field-wide impact.

A civil engineer sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming seven criteria. The director found two satisfied. The AAO withdrew the published material finding, rejected membership, original contributions and high salary, treated other criteria as waived, and dismissed because fewer than three criteria were met and acclaim was not shown.

An economist with over 100 scholarly publications claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found five criteria met but denied on final merits, claiming insufficient sustained acclaim. AAO reversed, finding the petitioner's 20-year career with continuous publications and recognition demonstrates sustained national acclaim among top economists.

Jiu-jitsu athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met lesser awards criterion but failed to establish three alternate regulatory criteria. Publications did not meet major media standard; training program lacked evidence of broader impact or major significance. Dismissed for insufficient criteria.