Published AAO appeal decisions

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

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.

Pharmacist seeking extraordinary ability classification in business based on plan to launch online pharmaceutical safety company. AAO found three criteria met but concluded totality of record lacks sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier status required for EB-1A.

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.

Managing director in financial services risk management seeks EB-1A classification. Six of seven claimed initial criteria met but appeal dismissed in final merits analysis. Record shows noteworthy accomplishments but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

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.

A crop pathologist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO affirmed only scholarly articles as met, withdrew the USCIS finding on judging, and rejected published materials. With only one criterion met, the petitioner fell short of the three-criterion threshold and was ineligible; final merits analysis was not reached.

Electrical engineer with master's and doctoral degrees from Iran proposing renewable energy research. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles); failed to establish original contributions of major significance; appeal dismissed.

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Assistant professor of advertising seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria; met three (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed final merits step: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required to place her among field's top tier.

Electrical engineer in semiconductor power electronics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles, high salary, and judging work. However, AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary to establish placement among the small percentage at the field's very top.

Senior data scientist with advanced degrees seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria, but satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. AAO dismissed appeal because threshold evidence requirement was not met, declining to analyze final merits.

An honorary research professor in classical studies claimed seven evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the contested awards, membership, contributions and leading-role criteria unmet, so the three-criterion threshold failed and final merits were not reached.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

An educational technologist from Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed eight initial criteria; the AAO found scholarly articles and judging met, but awards and membership not met, leaving only two criteria satisfied. Because at least three criteria are required, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

Research scientist in natural language processing holds Ph.D. and works as research associate. Claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three regulatory criteria including judging and scholarly articles. AAO upheld denial because totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among small percentage at top of field.