Published AAO appeal decisions

Postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider prior appeal dismissal, affirming that record failed to establish major significance of contributions and did not meet the minimum three criteria threshold.

Software engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied minimum alternative evidentiary criteria but AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or recognition placing him among the very top of his field.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

Realism artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required evidentiary criteria and failed to establish three criteria including prizes, published materials, and scholarly articles. Initial evidence threshold requirement was not met.

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.

A strategic operations lead with advanced degree claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-sponsored petition. USCIS found three criteria met, but AAO affirmed denial on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top-tier status despite met threshold criteria.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

A principal scientist in chemistry claimed five criteria but satisfied only two. The AAO found published material did not meet regulatory requirements and citation metrics alone do not demonstrate contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed for failing to establish three qualifying criteria.

A CEO self-petitioned for EB-1A. Met three criteria including awards, articles, and leadership role. AAO dismissed because final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim for extraordinary ability despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met one of ten criteria in initial review. The AAO dismissed successive motions to reopen and reconsider because they lacked new facts or documentary evidence not already considered, and did not address the underlying merits.

An actor in television and films sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed five criteria including published material and commercial success. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had the petition denied, then filed a motion that the service center rejected as untimely. The AAO held the motion was timely under COVID-19 filing flexibilities, since it was filed within 90 days plus mailing time, and remanded for a decision on the motion's merits. The criteria were not analyzed.

Music director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. On motion, claimed awards and judging participation without supporting evidence. AAO dismissed finding Latin Grammy participation certificate did not constitute a prize or award in musical director field and judging claims lacked corroboration.

An epidemiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of ten criteria and lacked sufficient documentation of sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

A rock climber sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed membership, published material, and judging criteria but failed to meet any. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding she did not establish the three criteria required and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or a position among the very top.

A modeling student petitioner claimed four EB-1A criteria but failed to provide properly certified translations of foreign language documents supporting awards, membership, and judging claims. The AAO affirmed dismissal because none of the criteria were sufficiently established, falling short of the required three.

A business legal consultant self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. She claimed eight criteria but the AAO found she did not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim or a place among the small percentage at the top of her field.

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.

Pharmaceutical research scientist sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only judging and scholarly articles met but original contributions lacked evidence of major significance and sustained national or international acclaim.

Ethnomusicology researcher meets four initial criteria (publications, judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO held totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage-at-top status: publication record typical for specialized field, media coverage lacks comparative context, and judging not shown to be prestigious.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

A cosmetics expert claimed extraordinary ability through seven criteria. The petitioner established judging and scholarly articles but failed awards and published material. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the record insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Novelist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed dismissal because petitioner met only two of ten criteria and failed to satisfy the required minimum of three. Membership criterion failed because published works do not constitute outstanding achievements; contributions criterion failed for lack of demonstrated major significance in field.