Published AAO appeal decisions

Information technology service delivery manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner had invalid signature on Form I-290B. Substantively, although petitioner met two initial criteria, evidence demonstrated only local or organizational recognition, not the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Entrepreneur in mergers and acquisitions and financial services sought EB-1A classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO found awards and leading role criteria were not met because supporting evidence lacked adequate recognition and organization stature alone does not establish award prestige. Salary criterion failed for lack of comparative data. Appeal dismissed.

Risk analyst and doctoral student in business administration claimed EB-1A classification with three criteria met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found criteria satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding limited media coverage and recent peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Materials scientist with doctorate claimed four criteria and satisfied three: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the field's top.

Artificial intelligence graduate researcher failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO found competition awards not nationally recognized; ChatGPT-sourced supporting documents deemed unreliable. With only two criteria potentially met, final merits analysis reserved as unnecessary.

Multimedia host and creative producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed USCIS finding that petitioner met only two criteria (published material and critical role), failing three-criterion threshold. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at field's top level.

Financial specialist in investment banking in China sought extraordinary ability in financial technology and cross-border investment. AAO upheld dismissal because petitioner failed to demonstrate three of ten required criteria; awards lacked recognition and original contributions were not shown to be major or industry-adopted.

A competitive swimmer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held he failed to meet the evidentiary threshold, finding only two criteria satisfied and rejecting published material and leading role claims. Final merits also not demonstrated despite claimed accomplishments.

Leadership and personal development consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found published material criterion met but judging and leading role criteria failed; overall evidence lacked sustained acclaim or elite positioning. Decision noted willful misrepresentation of material facts. Appeal dismissed.

An investment banker claimed extraordinary ability in his field. He met four regulatory criteria but failed on high salary and overall final merits. The AAO upheld dismissal, finding he is on a trajectory to reach the top but is currently a mid-career associate without demonstrated seniority, major deal leadership, or industry-wide reputation required for extraordinary ability.

A palliative and home care nurse sought EB-1A classification but submitted a fraudulent academic article published in a fake journal. The AAO found willful material misrepresentation, withdrew findings on one criterion, and concluded the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

Healthcare payer business unit manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner established only one criterion—leading critical role—but failed awards, original contributions, and high salary criteria. Petition dismissed for failing to meet three-criterion threshold for extraordinary ability.

A CEO of a clean energy company claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite satisfying initial criteria.

A software developer working in machine learning seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met (judging, authorship, leadership role, high salary). The AAO affirmed dismissal because the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

A franchise development businessman sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed ten criteria and demonstrated two: published material and judging. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet at least three criteria, satisfied no major award, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Ph.D. student and research assistant in agriculture water management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions, falling short of three-criterion threshold. AAO found record does not establish acclaim required; appeal dismissed.

A petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding the signature on Form I-290B did not match the petitioner's signatures elsewhere in the record, rendering the appeal not properly filed and lacking valid legal standing.

Business owner self-petitioner in disposable personal hygiene products manufacturing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal finding petitioner satisfied no three initial criteria; original contributions claim based on industry standard participation lacked sufficient evidence of major significance.

Computer engineer with 2023 PhD in electrical engineering claimed three criteria. Two were accepted at service center level. AAO affirmed original contributions not met because citations and support letters reflect only incremental research progress, not widespread field recognition of major significance. Appeal dismissed.

International consultant and policy analyst self-petitioner claimed four alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO upheld USCIS denial, finding petitioner met only the leading role criterion but failed on awards, published material, and original contributions. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; final merits declined.

Ph.D. candidate in computer science developing AI models for e-commerce claimed four criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material and original contributions. Limited field adoption and insufficient impact preclude extraordinary ability finding.

The petitioner's occupation is not stated in the available text. The appeal of an extraordinary ability denial was dismissed on procedural grounds because the signature on the appeal form appeared to be a copied image rather than a valid handwritten signature, so the appeal was not properly filed and no criteria were reviewed.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

Hammered dulcimer artist and music educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability to promote hammered dulcimer education and address educational gap. Claimed three criteria on appeal; AAO found petitioner did not satisfy membership or original contributions criteria, and waived remaining claims, thus failing to meet three-criterion threshold.