Published AAO appeal decisions

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 actor in television and films sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including published material and commercial success. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Music director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. On motion, claimed awards and judging participation without supporting evidence. AAO dismissed finding Latin Grammy participation certificate did not constitute a prize or award in musical director field and judging claims lacked corroboration.

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 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.

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.

Pharmaceutical research scientist sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major significance and sustained national or international acclaim.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

Sociologist with PhD focused on women and policy in Bangladesh sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found she met only two of ten criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Financial manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; SCOPS found only published material met, but AAO reversed that finding. AAO concluded petitioner satisfied no criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Automotive design engineer seeking extraordinary ability classification met only two of ten evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to provide brief or additional evidence and did not meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

A historian and rabbi in Jewish studies sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or positioning among the very top of the field.

Plant scientist in agronomy seeks EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria including judging and scholarly articles already found met by SCOPS. AAO held original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance and leading role unsupported, leaving only two criteria met when three required.

An investment officer in the financial industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, leading roles, high pay and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the awards finding because only company awards were shown, left three criteria met, then dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

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 life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the 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.

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.

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.

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A soil science researcher claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding only two criteria met. Original contributions rejected because publication in ranked journals and citation metrics alone do not establish major significance in the field without broader field recognition.

Legal researcher and lecturer in human rights law claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met. AAO affirmed four criteria were satisfied but held applicant failed final merits analysis, finding insufficient sustained acclaim and failure to demonstrate position among very top of field.