Published AAO appeal decisions

Business systems analyst claimed eight criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met at least three criteria at step one but lacked sustained national or international acclaim and recognition of extraordinary ability at the merits stage, dismissing the appeal.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

An international travel company owner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in entrepreneurship and tourism. Although SCOPS found four criteria met, the AAO determined the membership criterion failed because fellowship does not require expert judgment of outstanding achievement. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner merely very good, not among the small percentage at field's very top.

A business development manager seeks EB-1A visa. Appeal dismissed because AAO withdrew service center's findings on three of four criteria met, leaving only one satisfied criterion. Evidence lacks documentation of national or international acclaim or top-tier standing in field.

Teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met zero of the evidentiary criteria claimed; awards lack recognition, memberships unsubstantiated, published material insufficient, judging participation undocumented. Threshold of three criteria not met.

Musician and singer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three criteria in record: awards, published material, and original contributions. All three were rejected: awards lacked evidence of national or international recognition, published material was insufficient, and contributions were undemonstrated. AAO declined to address exhibitions and leading role criteria raised for first time on appeal.

Professional underwater rugby player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (awards, membership, published material), meeting the regulatory minimum. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

A law and policy specialist in technology law and AI ethics sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not satisfy three of ten initial criteria including membership, published materials, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Initial evidence threshold not met; final merits analysis not reached.

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.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

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.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

A rock climber sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, and judging criteria but failed to meet any. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding she did not establish the three criteria required and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or a position among the very top.

A modeling student petitioner claimed four EB-1A criteria but failed to provide properly certified translations of foreign language documents supporting awards, membership, and judging claims. The AAO affirmed dismissal because none of the criteria were sufficiently established, falling short of the required three.

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.

Novelist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten criteria and failed to satisfy the required minimum of three. Membership criterion failed because published works do not constitute outstanding achievements; contributions criterion failed for lack of demonstrated major significance in field.

A veterinarian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO dismissed her appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her veterinary field.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

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.

An enterprise software professional specializing in supply chain architecture sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary requirements were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. The excerpt leaves the status of some individual criteria uncertain.

A radiation oncologist and clinical researcher claimed eight criteria. The service center accepted only scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because memberships, published material, judging and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria met, and it reserved the final merits determination.