Published AAO appeal decisions

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An accountant and business operations manager claims extraordinary ability and seeks EB-1A classification. She claimed three criteria but failed to establish high salary requirement because comparative data did not match her actual position. The AAO dismissed without analyzing two other claimed criteria.

Egyptian lawyer claims extraordinary ability under four criteria: membership, leading role, high salary, and original contributions. AAO affirmed denial. Membership in bar association was mandatory for all practitioners, not selective. Leading role claims lacked evidence of distinguished organizations. Salary evidence insufficient for comparative analysis. No sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

Data scientist claimed five criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS and AAO found only one criterion met (high salary), then withdrew it on appeal. AAO determined petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed without final merits analysis.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.

Mobile technology consultant appealed denial of EB-1A petition. Although petitioner claimed four criteria met, AAO found published material and leading role criteria not satisfied. Petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and failed to establish extraordinary ability standard.

CEO/manager in business sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. Director found only leading role established. AAO dismissed, holding high salary claim failed due to inadequate comparison data and insufficient differential from survey averages.

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.

Author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner satisfied fewer than three initial regulatory criteria; withdrew published material finding and rejected high salary claim, concluding overall record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A real estate broker sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed appeal on procedural grounds: petitioner failed to address errors in the Director's motion dismissal decision. On substantive review, salary evidence showed above-average earnings but lacked comprehensive comparative data required.

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.

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.

Information technology project manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies sought EB-1A. AAO held petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits determination because evidence lacked comparative data showing sustained acclaim and top-tier field standing.

Fintech business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one of ten initial criteria. AAO affirmed director's rejection of scholarly article authorship and high salary criteria due to insufficient evidence of scholarly publication and unexplained salary discrepancies.

Aquatic coach and instructor claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding applicant failed to satisfy three required alternate criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability among the very top of field.

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

A periodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and high salary. However, the AAO found her research lacked sustained acclaim over time, media coverage was dated, and honors were insufficient to demonstrate she belonged among the very top in her field.

An actor with over two decades in film and television claimed seven evidentiary criteria and extraordinary ability. The director found three criteria met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement placing him among the very top in entertainment, despite being accomplished.

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.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

An omakase chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim; Michelin recognition was local, not national, and did not establish extraordinary ability among the very top.

A board-certified gastroenterologist with 22 years of experience sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found he met only two of ten criteria. The appeal was dismissed because he failed to meet the three-criterion threshold required for initial eligibility.