Published AAO appeal decisions

A digital transformation architect satisfied three initial criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his Salesforce certification, recent judging, publications, and employment did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

An entrepreneur and inventor from Transnistria claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding he failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or judging experience, thus falling short of the required three criteria threshold.

A healthcare ethics and medical communication researcher in early-career stage seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

A business executive claimed extraordinary ability through seven regulatory criteria, including awards and scholarly articles. The AAO found he did not receive a major internationally recognized award and met fewer than three alternate criteria. The appeal was dismissed because initial evidentiary requirements were not satisfied.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met (awards) but withdrew SCOPS findings on membership and published materials; petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Final merits analysis not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found three criteria met but AAO reversed on appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work, and did not rank among the very top of the 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.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

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.

A music video producer and director from Ukraine claims extraordinary ability. He satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria, falling short of the three-criterion minimum needed. AAO dismissed appeal, holding his awards lacked national or international recognition and association membership claim unsupported.

Makeup artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. AAO found only published material criterion met, fell short of three-criterion threshold, and found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding although the petitioner satisfied three initial criteria, the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top singers in the field.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

An IT specialist in cloud computing and cybersecurity sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria; the Service Center found four met. On appeal, the AAO rejected awards and memberships as unmet and concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold, so final merits was not addressed. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A digital media marketing strategist and agency founder claims extraordinary ability. She met four initial criteria (membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles) but failed on awards and final merits. AAO held her achievements from 2019–2025 lack the sustained, high-impact recognition required for this elite classification.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.