Published AAO appeal decisions

A Ukrainian attorney seeks EB-1A as self-petitioner proposing international legal consultancy work in environmental law and Ukraine-related projects. Service center wrongly excluded law categorically from EB-1 eligibility and failed to analyze claimed criteria. AAO remanded, finding attorney's work falls within social science or business field and requiring proper criterion-by-criterion evaluation.

A leadership and organization development specialist sought EB-1A classification. SCOPS denied based on field determination, not evidentiary criteria analysis. The AAO remanded, finding the occupation falls within business and requiring proper evaluation of seven claimed criteria under the correct regulatory framework.

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

Information technology manager from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two previously found by SCOPS. AAO found petitioner did not meet at least three of ten criteria: withdrew judging criterion based on lack of actual participation evidence in conference archives, rejected original contributions criterion for lack of meaningful field impact, and found no basis for other claims. Appeal dismissed.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

An assistant research scientist in medical entomology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant met only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria and failed to establish membership, published material, or original contributions.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

A lawyer and mediator from abroad sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center denied the petition because her occupation allegedly fell outside the statutory fields and it never analyzed the regulatory criteria. The AAO found her intended work to be in business, withdrew the denial, and remanded for a full criterion-by-criterion decision.

Aerospace researcher claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found she met fewer than three criteria required and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field, dismissing the appeal.

A site reliability engineer sought EB-1A classification. Four criteria were deemed waived, and the AAO withdrew the service center's favorable findings on judging and leading role, then rejected membership and original contributions. With fewer than three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed and final merits reserved.

A business executive planning a digital data analysis services company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the applicant failed to establish three of ten initial criteria. Membership claims lacked evidence that the associations required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts. The appeal was dismissed without reaching final merits.

An environmental science professor and researcher specializing in soil conservation and AI-powered monitoring systems sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and failed to establish the required three; final merits determination also failed.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

Street dancer and cultural advocate sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for education and advocacy work. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet initial evidence requirement of three regulatory criteria. Awards were for competitive dancing not education; association membership inadequately documented; sustained national acclaim not established.

An accountant claimed extraordinary ability in business. Although service center found three criteria met, AAO affirmed denial because evidence of publications, editorial work, and awards clustered shortly before filing in 2025, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required.

A short-form content creator with large social media presence claimed extraordinary ability but satisfied only two evidentiary criteria (published material and critical role). On appeal, the AAO rejected the awards criterion due to insufficient documentation of selection criteria and merit-based recognition. With fewer than three criteria met, the AAO declined to reach final merits and dismissed.

A synthetic organic chemist met at least three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits step. AAO found his judging experience and publications insufficient to show he rose to the very top of the field or enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim.

Information security associate vice president claimed seven criteria and satisfied three: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held initial evidence requirements met but final merits analysis showed insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

A dancer, choreographer, and coach met only two initial criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. AAO withdrew the service center's award finding and affirmed the final merits determination, dismissing the appeal.

A business executive in the pomegranate industry filed motions to reopen and reconsider an EB-1A extraordinary ability appeal. The AAO dismissed both motions, finding no new facts warranting reopening and no incorrect application of law or policy in the prior dismissal.

A vaccine industry executive with law and business degrees sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he met three criteria: leading critical role, high salary, and original contributions, and demonstrating sustained international acclaim placing him among the very top in his field.

A composer claimed extraordinary ability in film and television composition. AAO remanded, finding three criteria met (published material, judging, scholarly articles) and requiring final merits determination. SCOPS erred by excluding educational work from initial criteria analysis when sufficiently related to composition work.

A Kazakh law professor sought EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Although meeting three evidentiary criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and high salary—the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the highest level.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

A senior IT consultant working with AI-driven frameworks sought EB-1A classification. The service center found at least three evidentiary criteria satisfied but denied on final merits. The AAO did not decide additional criteria and dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.