Published AAO appeal decisions

A data scientist employed at a tech company petitioned for EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three initial evidentiary criteria. Only the awards criterion was analyzed and rejected; remaining criteria were not addressed as the first prong already failed.

Data analyst self-petitioner claimed eight EB-1A criteria. AAO withdrew findings on two criteria and rejected awards and salary claims. On final merits, AAO affirmed that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Senior data scientist with advanced degrees seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria, but satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. AAO dismissed appeal because threshold evidence requirement was not met, declining to analyze final merits.

Data scientist claimed five criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS and AAO found only one criterion met (high salary), then withdrew it on appeal. AAO determined petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed without final merits analysis.

A data scientist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed because petitioner did not satisfy three regulatory criteria; scholarly articles criterion was withdrawn, leaving only two criteria met, and record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim at field's top.

Data scientist employed by software company for agricultural analytics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria and argued three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied but determined evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small percentage status required for extraordinary ability.