Published AAO appeal decisions

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

A furniture business owner and chief executive sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, a leading role and high salary. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the awards criterion was not established, three criteria were not shown, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Chief legal officer in business law seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center erroneously excluded her under profession bar. AAO withdrew that decision and remanded, holding lawyers may qualify under EB-1A if their field is business rather than law practice, requiring reevaluation of claimed criteria and final merits.

Employer sponsored beneficiary in business field for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial: beneficiary did not receive major internationally recognized award individually, and record did not satisfy three of ten criteria. Award granted to employer, not beneficiary. Overall record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-described life coach and motivational leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding he failed to satisfy three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the highest echelon.

Business sustainability specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria satisfied, finding no major, nationally recognized award and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability or top-tier status.

Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.

Plant accountant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. AAO found petitioner met only judging criterion but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not qualify for highly restrictive visa classification intended for individuals at top of field.

Restaurant general manager with twenty-five years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish major award or meet three of ten regulatory criteria, particularly membership with demonstrated outstanding achievements, judging, and high salary comparable to field peers.

Senior project manager in business management claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and high salary criteria but failed awards, membership, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of the required three alternate criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Personnel management consultant in Russian-speaking countries claimed five criteria under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and no satisfaction of three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity, objectivity, and documentation; petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim.

A self-petitioner hospitality entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met two of ten criteria (published material and judging). The decision dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim outside his employment contexts.

Entrepreneur and financier in business sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three evidentiary criteria including awards and leadership role. AAO found awards lacked recognition as nationally or internationally prestigious for excellence in business and concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Pharmaceutical executive with 25 years experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met published material criterion but failed to establish at least three required criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO held insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A CEO of a cleaning service company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He failed to meet the required three initial evidentiary criteria; his entrepreneurship award was student-limited, and chamber membership lacked the outstanding achievement requirement, leaving him ineligible for final merits analysis.

Business operations specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria initially: leading role and high salary. On appeal, claimed published material criterion but AAO found translations inaccurate and uncertified. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two criteria.

Business executive and company founder in China claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met but concluded petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A classification.

Investment firm petitioned for investment banking executive beneficiary claiming six criteria. AAO found at most one criterion met and rejected the director's published material finding, concluding petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or the three-criterion threshold.

Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.

Beauty products company petitioned for executive with extraordinary ability in business. Although the beneficiary met published material and leading role criteria, she failed to establish three total criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.