Published AAO appeal decisions

Entrepreneur in mergers and acquisitions and financial services sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO found awards and leading role criteria were not met because supporting evidence lacked adequate recognition and organization stature alone does not establish award prestige. Salary criterion failed for lack of comparative data. Appeal dismissed.

Leadership and personal development consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found published material criterion met but judging and leading role criteria failed; overall evidence lacked sustained acclaim or elite positioning. Decision noted willful misrepresentation of material facts. Appeal dismissed.

Healthcare payer business unit manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner established only one criterion—leading critical role—but failed awards, original contributions, and high salary criteria. Petition dismissed for failing to meet three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

Road safety equipment manufacturer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed eight criteria; AAO found three met (leading role, high salary, and one other). Dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner's local recognition and regional reputation insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top level of field.

Managing director of electric vehicle repair and customization shop. Claimed seven evidentiary criteria including awards and published material. AAO found none met. Awards lacked national recognition; published material articles mostly not about petitioner or from non-major media. Appeal dismissed.

Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

Business consultant in Brazil claimed six evidentiary criteria but met none of the three required. AAO found award not for excellence in field, SCORE membership insufficient, and company lacked distinguished reputation, declining final merits review.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed she met published material and judging criteria but rejected her high salary claim due to inadequate comparative wage data. With only two criteria met, she failed the three-criterion threshold and appeal was dismissed.

Business development executive and entrepreneur in technology-driven fitness and wellness ventures claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; Service Center found two met. AAO found three criteria met on de novo review, satisfying initial evidence requirement. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

Economist and former Armenian politician petitioned for EB-1A claiming eight criteria. AAO found three criteria met: published material, scholarly articles, and leading role at organizations. Case remanded for final merits analysis on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim among top percentile in field.

General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.

Investment fund director with eleven years in private equity and banking claimed five criteria plus comparable evidence. AAO found published material and comparable evidence (display) criteria met, satisfying the three-criterion threshold. However, on final merits, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of his field, so appeal was dismissed.

Chief executive seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, awards, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards not for field excellence, judging lacked corroboration, and critical role unestablished. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A vaccine industry executive with law and business degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he met three criteria: leading critical role, high salary, and original contributions, and demonstrating sustained international acclaim placing him among the very top in his field.

An executive for a news organization in China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. The AAO found three criteria met but determined the totality of evidence failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A strategic operations lead with advanced degree claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-sponsored petition. USCIS found three criteria met, but AAO affirmed denial on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status despite met threshold criteria.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

A business legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed eight criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the top of her field.

A public diplomacy professional claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria but met only membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner satisfied only one initial criterion and did not reach final merits, as threshold requirements were not met.

Product manager sought EB-1A classification. Did not receive major internationally recognized award and failed to satisfy three alternate criteria: awards lacked national recognition, contributions not shown original or major, leading role evidence insufficient.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.