AAO Decisions Explorer · Free
Published AAO appeal decisions
Search the decisions the Administrative Appeals Office has published, narrow them by visa, criterion, field and year, and read our summary of each one with a link to the official PDF.

Decisions in the library
6,586
6,586 classified
Visa types
3
Years covered
2005-2026
Latest decision
Aug 31, 2026
Filters
10 decisions
Outcomes in these results
- Dismissed
- Remanded
- Sustained
- EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
CEO claiming extraordinary ability in business submitted evidence of local company rankings, association membership, software development, and executive compensation. AAO found only one criterion met, concluding the applicant showed talent but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.
1 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Self-petitioner management scientist claimed extraordinary ability via award, membership, and published material. AAO found Second-Class award insufficient due to incomplete documentation, no evidence of outstanding-achievement membership requirement, and Chinese-language articles do not constitute major media.
0 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Senior business executive in sales and marketing at guitar company claiming extraordinary ability. AAO held no major award established and no three criteria met. Court rejected comparable evidence argument where regulatory criteria apply; evidence insufficient for sustained acclaim at very top level.
0 of 3 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Market research analyst claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences or business. Petitioner submitted awards, memberships, and evaluation responsibilities but met no criteria. AAO found successful professional in Romania and valued employee in California but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. Appeal dismissed.
0 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Self-petitioner seeks EB-1A classification as business person with extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, and leading role criteria. AAO rejected all criteria and concluded beneficiary is successful regional businessman without sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.
0 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary in business. Beneficiary president and CEO of successful furniture retail company in Arizona. AAO found evidence demonstrates successful local business reputation but not sustained national or international acclaim placing him among very top of field.
0 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met two criteria but required three; evidence of patented inventions lacked corporate confirmation of national impact and sustained implementation.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
A management scientist filed a self-petition for EB-1A. AAO found the petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria. Awards were second-class and insufficiently documented; publications appeared only in Chinese media lacking major attention; and original contributions lacked citations demonstrating field recognition. Appeal dismissed.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Software company president sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed six criteria; met only leading critical role. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or achievements setting him significantly above peers in the field. Appeal dismissed.
1 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and management2005Dismissed
Employer petitioned for beneficiary, senior business executive in sales and marketing, for extraordinary ability. AAO rejected company awards and comparable evidence claim under regulation inapplicable to business field. Multiple applicable criteria existed; evidence insufficient to meet three required criteria.
0 of 3 criteria metRead →
