Published AAO appeal decisions

A research teaching specialist in cell biology claimed four EB-1A criteria: original contributions, judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that original contributions and leading role were not met. With only two criteria established, the threshold of three was not satisfied. Final merits determination was not reached.

Ukrainian soccer coach claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed that the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among the very top in the field despite media coverage and training method adoption.

A business development coach from Colombia claimed extraordinary ability in social innovation and sustainable business. The AAO found he met only two of ten evidentiary criteria and did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, so dismissed without reaching the final sustained acclaim analysis.

An associate clinical professor in gastroenterology sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he met three regulatory criteria through judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles with high citations. The final merits determination found sustained national and international acclaim in inflammatory bowel disease research with extensive recognition.

Postdoctoral research associate in molecular biology seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed three criteria; met two (judging, scholarly articles). AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner failed to establish original contributions of major significance required by regulatory threshold, thus failing to meet three required criteria.

Pole fitness performer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Motions to reopen and reconsider challenged award recognition finding. AAO affirmed that pole fitness awards lack national or international recognition and that new evidence did not address insufficiencies; dismissed motions.

Abdominal radiology researcher claimed extraordinary ability. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, original contributions. AAO held she failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting initial criteria; citation record and peer reviews insufficient.

A hip-hop artist, music producer, and model from Russia sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed three criteria met: awards, published material, and commercial success. However, the final merits determination found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Pilot petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO found membership criterion not met because fellowship selection was not judged by recognized experts. High salary claim failed because compensation matched standard rates for comparable service. Petitioner met fewer than three required criteria, so appeal dismissed without final merits review.

Postdoctoral physicist self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. AAO found evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite fellowships, publications, and work at distinguished institutions.

A biomedical textiles and materials engineer seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten initial evidence criteria regarding salary and commercial success but failed membership and original contributions prongs. Decision held that meeting only two criteria does not satisfy the threshold initial evidence requirement; final merits analysis was reserved.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

Surveyor seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability in geodetic and survey networks. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that original contributions and leading critical roles criteria unmet. With only two criteria satisfied, threshold not reached; final merits determination declined.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Cybersecurity and Internet of Things researcher met initial three-criterion threshold but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work at field's top.

An editor with a doctoral degree in editing and publishing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. The AAO found no major award and rejected membership, published material, and other criteria as not meeting regulatory standards, dismissing the appeal 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.

AI researcher and CEO sought EB-1A classification claiming four criteria; two were met. Motion to reconsider challenged findings on original contributions and high salary. AAO upheld prior dismissal, finding motion did not establish error in law or policy application.

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

An operations/technical specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS contradicted itself, first stating three criteria were met then denying them without analysis. AAO remanded, finding the decision lacked sufficient explanation and analysis required for meaningful appellate review.

A teacher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification (EB-1A). She claimed seven criteria including membership, judging, original contributions, authorship, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found none met: membership did not require outstanding achievements, original contributions lacked significance, article was not in major publication, and role was not critical at a distinguished organization.

A parachuting athlete claimed extraordinary ability based on professional recognition over 15 years. The AAO confirmed he met three evidentiary criteria but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim consistent with the top percentage of his field.

Advanced data scientist seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria; three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied the initial requirement but held that totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, top-tier status, or career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Chinese architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but established none. AAO affirmed denial, finding record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for classification.