Published AAO appeal decisions

A CEO of a clean energy company claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite satisfying initial criteria.

Petroleum reservoir and production engineer with expertise in hydraulic fracturing and pressure transient analysis claims extraordinary ability. Met five initial evidentiary criteria, exceeding three-criterion threshold. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite accomplishment level required for extraordinary ability classification.

Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier of the field.

Geologist and petroleum researcher claiming extraordinary ability in hydrocarbon modeling. Failed to meet three criteria threshold. Awards not nationally recognized, judging role informal only, and original contributions lacked major field significance. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not establish required expertise level.

An analyst in power systems economics and intelligent systems applications sought EB-1A classification, with counsel claiming at least three criteria. The AAO found the journal peer review evidence satisfied the judging criterion, but held the record as a whole did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.