Published AAO appeal decisions

Information technology service delivery manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner had invalid signature on Form I-290B. Substantively, although petitioner met two initial criteria, evidence demonstrated only local or organizational recognition, not the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Risk analyst and doctoral student in business administration claimed EB-1A classification with three criteria met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found criteria satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding limited media coverage and recent peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Materials scientist with doctorate claimed four criteria and satisfied three: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the field's top.

Multimedia host and creative producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed USCIS finding that petitioner met only two criteria (published material and critical role), failing three-criterion threshold. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at field's top level.

An investment banker claimed extraordinary ability in his field. He met four regulatory criteria but failed on high salary and overall final merits. The AAO upheld dismissal, finding he is on a trajectory to reach the top but is currently a mid-career associate without demonstrated seniority, major deal leadership, or industry-wide reputation required for extraordinary ability.

A palliative and home care nurse sought EB-1A classification but submitted a fraudulent academic article published in a fake journal. The AAO found willful material misrepresentation, withdrew findings on one criterion, and concluded the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

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.

A software developer working in machine learning seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met (judging, authorship, leadership role, high salary). The AAO affirmed dismissal because the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

Ph.D. student and research assistant in agriculture water management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions, falling short of three-criterion threshold. AAO found record does not establish acclaim required; appeal dismissed.

Computer engineer with 2023 PhD in electrical engineering claimed three criteria. Two were accepted at service center level. AAO affirmed original contributions not met because citations and support letters reflect only incremental research progress, not widespread field recognition of major significance. Appeal dismissed.

Ph.D. candidate in computer science developing AI models for e-commerce claimed four criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material and original contributions. Limited field adoption and insufficient impact preclude extraordinary ability finding.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral researcher in machine learning and energy systems claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed on original contributions and leading role, thus not meeting the three-criterion threshold.

Research scholar and professor claims extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field.

Professor of applied linguistics sought EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria by rejecting awards, published material, and original contributions findings. Withdrew SCOPS' favorable determinations on these three without reaching final merits given failure to meet evidentiary prongs.

Ph.D. in biological and agricultural engineering claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed Service Center finding that petitioner met only judging and articles criteria. Original contributions claim rejected because citation rates and professional letters did not establish widespread field commentary on significance.

Pharmaceutical researcher claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability asserts evidence of major contributions through highly cited publications on colorectal cancer treatment. AAO held petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria; publications in respected journals do not automatically demonstrate major significance; no evidence of substantial field impact; appeal dismissed.

A political science professor and researcher with a master's and PhD sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. She claimed nine regulatory criteria. The AAO found the awards and membership criteria unmet and did not reach the remaining criteria or final merits because initial evidence threshold was not satisfied.

A Middle East analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical roles) but dismissed the appeal, concluding the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the field's very top.

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Composer, music minister, and ethnomusicology educator claimed six criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material on plain language grounds. Petitioner waived remaining claims. Falls short of sustained national or international acclaim threshold.

Transit-oriented development executive self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Although satisfying four initial criteria for published material, judging, scholarly articles, and high remuneration, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Financial executive claimed nine evidentiary criteria. AAO found three criteria met including judging, critical role, and scholarly articles on appeal. Final merits determination found evidence of some recognition insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim among very top of field.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

Medical health services manager seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed USCIS finding of four criteria met but held petitioner failed final merits determination; lacks career of sustained acclaimed work and evidence of recognition at very top of field.