Published AAO appeal decisions

A director of product compliance at a school bus manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only a high salary criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found memberships, published material, contributions and scholarly articles unmet, leaving fewer than three criteria, and dismissed the appeal.

Performing artist petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found two criteria met but provided conclusory analysis on three others without adequate discussion of specific evidence. AAO remanded for proper reevaluation of all claimed criteria and, if three are satisfied, a final merits determination.

A tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

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.

Financial advisor self-petitioner appealed EB-1A denial. AAO found petitioner satisfied none of ten initial evidentiary criteria, rejecting claims of awards, memberships, publications, and judging experience. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidence requirement needed for final merits determination.

An accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A classification in business. After the petition was denied and several motions were handled, the appeal concerned dismissal of a sixth motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the motion offered no new facts or evidence and identified no legal error.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

Global health specialist seeks extraordinary ability classification to establish aging healthcare services company. Claimed nine criteria; service center found two met. AAO affirms only two criteria satisfied, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher specializing in protein nanowires sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

A general manager in fund management seeking to establish a firm claimed four criteria; two were met. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria, failing to meet the threshold for extraordinary ability classification.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.

Director of English for Academic Purposes Program claims extraordinary ability through judging and scholarly articles, and leading role at university. AAO affirmed that judging and articles met criteria but rejected leading role claim because the university's distinguished reputation was insufficiently demonstrated. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; appeal dismissed.

A media entrepreneur working in digital marketing sought extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed many evidentiary criteria, and the appeal addressed awards, published material, original contributions and possibly scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence lacked award criteria, proof of major media status, and proof of contributions of major significance.

A financial manager sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: membership, original contributions, and a leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the membership criterion was not satisfied, so the three-criteria threshold could not be met. The other claimed criteria and the final merits were not decided.

An information security analyst in IT and cybersecurity sought EB-1A classification. She claimed four criteria across proceedings. The AAO found membership and salary criteria unmet and reserved analysis of two others. Aggregate review showed no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Computer scientist petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established two of ten initial criteria: published material and judging. AAO held original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and salary evidence lacks adequate comparative context. Failed to meet threshold of three criteria.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A venture capital investment manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four criteria but met only the high-salary criterion. The AAO affirmed the denial because he satisfied only two criteria, falling short of the three required before final merits analysis, and dismissed the appeal.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider after denial and earlier dismissals. The AAO dismissed it because no new facts were supported by documents and no incorrect application of law or policy was shown; the arguments merely repeated earlier ones.

A self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds because the notice of appeal carried a script-font signature rather than the petitioner's personal signature, so the substantive criteria were never examined.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.

Professional baseball player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although petitioner satisfied four initial evidentiary criteria, final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim among small percentage at very top of field. Major League selection alone does not establish extraordinary ability.