Published AAO appeal decisions

A chief executive officer and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A classification claiming published material, awards, and membership criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable finding on published material, rejected awards and membership claims for insufficient evidence, and found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three qualifying criteria.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.

Financial analyst seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three of ten criteria. AAO found no major international award and rejected high salary criterion on improper comparison basis, leaving petitioner below three-criterion threshold. Reserved remaining criteria. Dismissed appeal.

Business consultant self-petitioner claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, upholding prior findings that published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria were not met. Membership and leading role criteria were reserved as unnecessary since three criteria minimum was not satisfied.

A singer-composer self-petitioned for EB-1A. Demonstrated two criteria: lesser awards and exhibition display. Failed to establish three required criteria. AAO affirmed denial because the evidentiary threshold was not met, reserving final merits analysis.

A quantum chemist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO remanded the case, finding he met three initial criteria including original contributions, and instructed the service center to conduct final merits determination on totality of evidence.

Professional soccer player seeking EB-1A as intending soccer coach. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only two of six claimed criteria met. Petitioner lacked coaching evidence and sustained acclaim in new field; transition from athlete to coach does not satisfy extraordinary ability standard for small percentage at field's top.

A civil engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Journalist and media manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria: no major award, membership evidence inadequate, and judging experience not equivalent to policy standard. Appeal dismissed, SCOPS denial affirmed.

A business executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status based on nine claimed criteria, including awards, membership, and high salary. The AAO found no major award and rejected lesser prizes and membership as nationally or internationally recognized. High salary finding was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation. The petitioner did not meet the initial three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A health management specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found she met one criterion regarding scholarly articles but failed the membership criterion and reserved the leading role criterion. Because she did not establish three criteria, the final merits step was not performed, and the appeal was dismissed.

A Canadian business manager and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met zero evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability and lacked sustained national or international acclaim as required by statute.

Machine learning engineer appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. AAO found petitioner demonstrated original contributions of major significance through highly cited research, meeting the initial evidence threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination of sustained acclaim.

A general manager and entrepreneur in China's building materials industry seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria but met only two. The AAO found his awards lacked national or international recognition and his contributions, while claimed, were not proven to be original and majorly significant.

Cosmetics innovator claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability for stamp crease tool invention and artistic displays. AAO affirmed denial, finding no recognized awards, insufficient evidence of original contribution, and failure to establish three criteria. Lack of sustained national or international acclaim found.

Administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet the minimum three of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards and membership criteria were not met; artistic exhibition criterion inapplicable to administrative work; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A logistician sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner failed to document individual association membership and lacked evidence of judging others' work in logistics. Meeting only two of ten required criteria precluded reaching final merits analysis.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had a petition denied and an earlier appeal dismissed. Combined motions to reopen and reconsider were filed after the 33-day deadline, and the delay was not shown to be reasonable and beyond the petitioner's control. The AAO dismissed both motions as untimely and for lacking new facts or legal error.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing sought EB-1A classification. On motion to reconsider, he disputed the dismissal of his appeal without presenting new evidence or facts. The AAO found he failed to establish three required criteria and upheld the dismissal.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

Spanish voiceover actor for dubbing and localization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because service center failed to address three claimed criteria despite petitioner providing evidence in initial petition and response to RFE, denying fair opportunity to contest on appeal.