Published AAO appeal decisions

Data scientist claimed five criteria on appeal. AAO found record meets at least three criteria but totality fails to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and top-of-field status required for extraordinary ability classification.

An MMA lightweight fighter sought EB-1A classification claiming a major international award and multiple alternate criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met published material and high salary criteria but lacked the major international award and failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A pastry chef sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed six evidentiary criteria beyond the one initially found met by the director. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion when at least three were required, and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

Artist manager who is founder and CEO of an organization seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met published material and leading role criteria but not high salary. Because he did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria, final merits analysis showed he lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Model sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met display and judging criteria but failed to satisfy published material and high salary criteria. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for classification among small percentage at top of field.

An actor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria and met only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy the three-criterion minimum. His published materials were not verifiable or in major outlets, his membership lacked outstanding achievement requirements, his salary was not significantly high compared to peers, and his commercial success was insufficient by volume.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

Video editor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only one criterion (exhibitions); two withdrawn on review (judging, high salary lack proper evidence). Failed to meet three-criterion threshold and demonstrated no sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An executive and consultant in finance and accounting sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of four claimed criteria but the AAO found she lacked the requisite sustained national or international acclaim and had not risen to the very top of her field.

Engineering executive in drilling and well completion sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of required three initial criteria and failed final merits determination; lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Clinical psychologist and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed the petition because the Form 1-140 lacked a proper handwritten signature (typed instead). On merits, petitioner failed to satisfy three of ten criteria; high salary claim lacked required compensation survey evidence.

Reinsurance executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria but established only one (leading or critical role). AAO affirmed petitioner failed to meet membership and high salary criteria, did not reach original contributions, and concluded record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier standing required.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met one of ten criteria but failed to demonstrate at least three. AAO held petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim or comparable evidence meeting regulatory standards; major league performance alone insufficient.

Self-petitioner protective security provider sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one criterion (high salary) but needed three; remaining claimed criteria failed. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO found published material and leading role criteria met but original contributions lacked field-wide impact and salary evidence was unreliable. Appeal dismissed for failing minimum three-criterion threshold.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He met one criterion but failed to meet the required minimum of three criteria. The AAO found his overall record lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability, dismissing the appeal.

A cybersecurity interaction designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed original contributions and other criteria. The AAO found he met only two criteria (leading role and high salary), falling short of the three required. His design work lacked demonstrated major significance beyond employer products, and he failed to establish sustained acclaim for the classification.

A makeup artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria on appeal but provided insufficient evidence for awards, judging, publications, salary, and membership; one criterion was abandoned. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner did not satisfy three criteria or demonstrate extraordinary ability.

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for studio and gallery work. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one of ten required criteria and failed to demonstrate major award or sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.

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.

Fashion model with O-1 nonimmigrant status sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she satisfied only one of ten initial evidentiary criteria; comparable evidence argument without demonstrating inapplicability of specific criteria was rejected; insufficient proof of sustained acclaim.