Published AAO appeal decisions

International consultant and policy analyst self-petitioner claimed four alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO upheld USCIS denial, finding petitioner met only the leading role criterion but failed on awards, published material, and original contributions. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; final merits declined.

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 legal consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six regulatory criteria including awards, published materials, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards lacked national or international recognition and published materials documentation was incomplete; because the petitioner failed to establish three initial criteria, final merits were not reached.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.

A journalist from Kazakhstan with roles as poet, writer, and performer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding she did not establish three of ten criteria: no major award, membership organizations lack required standards, and blog posts do not constitute scholarly articles. Threshold not met; final merits not reached.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. The AAO found judging and contributions not met and declined to address the other two, dismissing for failure to satisfy the threshold of three criteria.

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.

A Ukrainian attorney seeks EB-1A as self-petitioner proposing international legal consultancy work in environmental law and Ukraine-related projects. Service center wrongly excluded law categorically from EB-1 eligibility and failed to analyze claimed criteria. AAO remanded, finding attorney's work falls within social science or business field and requiring proper criterion-by-criterion evaluation.

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 lawyer and mediator from abroad sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition because her occupation allegedly fell outside the statutory fields and it never analyzed the regulatory criteria. The AAO found her intended work to be in business, withdrew the denial, and remanded for a full criterion-by-criterion decision.

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.

A law and policy specialist in technology law and AI ethics sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not satisfy three of ten initial criteria including membership, published materials, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Initial evidence threshold not met; final merits analysis not reached.

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 legal consultant with a recent law degree sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found two claimed criteria unmet: membership in professional associations lacked evidence of outstanding achievement requirements, and a published article did not qualify as scholarly work for learned professionals. No final merits analysis followed.

A former judge seeks extraordinary ability classification based on judicial work in Armenia. The AAO found the petitioner met only the original contributions criterion and one criterion already accepted by the service center, falling short of the required three criteria. Appeal dismissed because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

Brazilian lawyer with bar membership and limited publications sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria; record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A legal consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held that the petitioner did not meet any of the ten evidentiary criteria and failed the threshold initial evidence requirement, so a final merits determination was not reached.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.

A humanitarian and social worker claimed extraordinary ability under three EB-1A criteria: awards, judging, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed the denial, finding the awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition. With only two criteria claimed and one rejected, the petitioner could not meet the minimum three required criteria, so remaining criteria and final merits were not addressed.

A lawyer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition and then dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On appeal, the AAO summarily dismissed because the brief argued the original denial's merits and never addressed the motion dismissal, so the issues were abandoned and no criteria were decided.