Published AAO appeal decisions

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

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.

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.

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

Enterprise architect self-petitioner claimed eight criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO confirmed three met criteria but held totality of evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or membership among small percentage at field top.

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

Aerospace researcher claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found she met fewer than three criteria required and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field, dismissing the appeal.

An environmental science professor and researcher specializing in soil conservation and AI-powered monitoring systems sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and failed to establish the required three; final merits determination also failed.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

An accountant claimed extraordinary ability in business. Although service center found three criteria met, AAO affirmed denial because evidence of publications, editorial work, and awards clustered shortly before filing in 2025, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required.

A dancer, choreographer, and coach met only two initial criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. AAO withdrew the service center's award finding and affirmed the final merits determination, dismissing the appeal.

A composer claimed extraordinary ability in film and television composition. AAO remanded, finding three criteria met (published material, judging, scholarly articles) and requiring final merits determination. SCOPS erred by excluding educational work from initial criteria analysis when sufficiently related to composition work.

A Kazakh law professor sought EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Although meeting three evidentiary criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and high salary—the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the highest level.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

Agricultural economist claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Submitted evidence for five criteria: awards, high salary, original contributions, leading role, and scholarly articles. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met; awards lack national/international recognition, salary comparison improper, and original contributions lack sufficient field impact. Fails three-criterion threshold.

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.

An intercultural communication assistant professor claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but awards and original contributions failed; only two criteria satisfied. Because threshold initial evidence requirements were not met, the appeal was dismissed without final merits analysis.

Postdoctoral research scientist in pharmaceutical sciences claimed three evidentiary criteria, all met at initial stage. AAO upheld dismissal because evidence of peer review, citations, and articles did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field as required.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

A powerlifting coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three initial criteria. The AAO found he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of his field because his judging experience lacked prestige, his published articles received no citations, and his accomplishments were insufficiently documented.

Film producer petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS found four criteria met but denied for insufficient sustained acclaim at top of field. AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion (judging) actually met and threshold not satisfied.

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.