Published AAO appeal decisions

A music video producer and director from Ukraine claims extraordinary ability. He satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria, falling short of the three-criterion minimum needed. AAO dismissed appeal, holding his awards lacked national or international recognition and association membership claim unsupported.

Makeup artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. AAO found only published material criterion met, fell short of three-criterion threshold, and found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding although the petitioner satisfied three initial criteria, the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top singers in the field.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.

Chief executive seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, awards, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards not for field excellence, judging lacked corroboration, and critical role unestablished. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

Professional guitarist and music educator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO affirmed service center findings that two criteria were met but dismissed appeal because only two criteria satisfied and three required; overall record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among top of field.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

An IT specialist in cloud computing and cybersecurity sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria; the Service Center found four met. On appeal, the AAO rejected awards and memberships as unmet and concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold, so final merits was not addressed. Appeal dismissed.

A computer and information research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center denied the petition. The AAO withdrew that decision and remanded it because the denial blended two different petitioners and beneficiaries and did not clearly state which record or reasons it addressed. No criteria were decided.

A badminton player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. SCOPS denied the petition, but the AAO found the service center failed to adequately consider the timely-submitted RFE response due to a misdating error and remanded for proper reconsideration of the entire record.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. The AAO found judging and contributions not met and declined to address the other two, dismissing for failure to satisfy the threshold of three criteria.

First assistant surgeon self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria: association membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found membership criterion not met and leading role criterion not met; original contributions and scholarly articles not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

A digital media marketing strategist and agency founder claims extraordinary ability. She met four initial criteria (membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles) but failed on awards and final merits. AAO held her achievements from 2019–2025 lack the sustained, high-impact recognition required for this elite classification.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

Brazilian footvolley player, coach, trainer, and referee sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and failure to establish placement among elite practitioners in footvolley.

Enterprise architect self-petitioner claimed eight criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO confirmed three met criteria but held totality of evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or membership among small percentage at field top.