Published AAO appeal decisions

Executive chef with work history in Poland and United States claimed four criteria. AAO found three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or recognition as among small percentage at very top of culinary field. Appeal dismissed.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established multiple initial criteria despite withdrawal of membership finding. Final merits analysis found evidence reflected time-limited success lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for pinnacle-level classification.

A senior software engineer in artificial intelligence and cloud computing claimed extraordinary ability and met three evidentiary criteria at service center level. On appeal, the AAO reviewed totality of evidence including technical innovations, scholarly works, and professional leadership. The AAO found insufficient demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status and dismissed.

A cybersecurity specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three alternate criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review activities isolated, published articles lacked prestige, and compensation lacked proper contextualization.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

Physician, public health expert and entrepreneur with MD and recent MPH claimed five criteria but met only two. AAO affirmed denial, finding membership and original contributions criteria unsatisfied. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Soccer coach and former player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner met only two of ten required initial criteria, that sustained acclaim must be in declared field of expertise (coaching, not playing), and career lacks required level of acclaim.

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.

Taekwondo instructor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew service center's affirmative findings on three criteria and affirmed failure to meet others, concluding petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum three criteria threshold without reaching final merits.

An industrial engineer sought EB-1A for renewable energy innovation. He did not claim five criteria and withdrew reliance on two others USCIS initially credited. AAO found his Ukrainian government awards lacked national recognition and did not evidence excellence in engineering. Petitioner failed initial evidentiary threshold and appeal was dismissed.

Road safety equipment manufacturer and director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed eight criteria; AAO found three met (leading role, high salary, and one other). Dismissed on final merits, finding petitioner's local recognition and regional reputation insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top level of field.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider, holding the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was legally incorrect and did not provide sufficient new facts warranting reopening. The underlying petition denial stood.

A dance coach self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied the petition for failing to meet three criteria. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to analyze all claimed criteria and did not provide reasoned explanation, denying the petitioner meaningful appellate review.

Neuroscientist with doctorate and postdoctoral experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles and original contributions. AAO held final merits analysis failed because citation records and institution prestige do not establish sustained national acclaim or placement in very top of field.

Managing director of electric vehicle repair and customization shop. Claimed seven evidentiary criteria including awards and published material. AAO found none met. Awards lacked national recognition; published material articles mostly not about petitioner or from non-major media. Appeal dismissed.

Healthcare consultant and platform developer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met minimum evidentiary criteria but did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place him among the small percentage at his field's top.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both, finding no new facts and no incorrect application of law or policy, only reargument of issues already considered.

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

Biophysics researcher appealed USCIS EB-1A denial. USCIS found fewer than three criteria met. AAO held researcher met three initial criteria; USCIS underweighted original contributions evidence. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim at field's top.

A veterinarian appealed motion to reopen extraordinary ability denial. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding no new facts warranting reopening. Though meeting three regulatory criteria at step one, the appellate decision properly found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing at step two.

A materials chemistry scientist filed an EB-1A petition as a self-petitioner. USCIS erroneously applied the EB-1B outstanding professor standard instead of EB-1A. The AAO remanded for reconsideration under the correct statutory framework for extraordinary ability.