Published AAO appeal decisions

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

Cybersecurity and Internet of Things researcher met initial three-criterion threshold but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work at field's top.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary evidence.

AI technology company petitioned for O-1A classification of chief technology officer. Beneficiary met only one criterion (judging); awards, membership, and published material criteria were not satisfied. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary could not meet minimum three criteria requirement for extraordinary ability.

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

Senior security engineer claiming extraordinary ability in IT security. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied only two: judging and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, outstanding achievements through memberships, or published materials meeting regulatory standards. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at field's top.

Software developer and entrepreneur claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at field's top.

A gaming electronics company sought extraordinary ability classification for a foreign game design lead, claiming five criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (leading role and high salary) but rejected awards and published material claims and found insufficient sustained individual acclaim, dismissing the appeal for failing the three-criterion threshold.

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.