Published AAO appeal decisions

Research scholar and professor claims extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field.

Professor of applied linguistics sought EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria by rejecting awards, published material, and original contributions findings. Withdrew SCOPS' favorable determinations on these three without reaching final merits given failure to meet evidentiary prongs.

A political science professor and researcher with a master's and PhD sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. She claimed nine regulatory criteria. The AAO found the awards and membership criteria unmet and did not reach the remaining criteria or final merits because initial evidence threshold was not satisfied.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

An environmental science professor and researcher specializing in soil conservation and AI-powered monitoring systems sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and failed to establish the required three; final merits determination also failed.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

An intercultural communication assistant professor claimed five EB-1A criteria. The AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but awards and original contributions failed; only two criteria satisfied. Because threshold initial evidence requirements were not met, the appeal was dismissed without final merits analysis.

Teacher claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met zero of the evidentiary criteria claimed; awards lack recognition, memberships unsubstantiated, published material insufficient, judging participation undocumented. Threshold of three criteria not met.

A historian and rabbi in Jewish studies sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or positioning among the very top of the field.

An honorary research professor in classical studies claimed seven evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the contested awards, membership, contributions and leading-role criteria unmet, so the three-criterion threshold failed and final merits were not reached.

An educational technologist from Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed eight initial criteria; the AAO found scholarly articles and judging met, but awards and membership not met, leaving only two criteria satisfied. Because at least three criteria are required, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

A rabbi and historian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria but met none. The AAO found published material did not appear in required outlets and educational certifications do not constitute prizes for excellence. The petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

An educator with a PhD in engineering seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial because she met only one of seven claimed criteria and has not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

A Kyrgyz history and culture scholar claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found evidentiary criteria met but denied on final merits. AAO sustained denial, finding the petitioner accomplished but not among the very top of the field despite national recognition and publications.

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

An assistant professor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability, claiming six criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding she satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles): she needed three. The award lacked national recognition, and the aggregate record did not establish sustained acclaim or membership in the very top of her field.

A professor of urban and regional planning in Brazil claims extraordinary ability. He met one of ten evidentiary criteria (judging) but the AAO found he did not meet three required. The record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or position at the very top of the field.

Public school employer petitioned for high school science teacher beneficiary as extraordinary ability. Beneficiary met only two criteria: judging and high salary. Award not major and internationally recognized. Did not meet three-criterion threshold or demonstrate sustained acclaim. Appeal dismissed.

Employer-sponsored Spanish language instructor using art to teach foreign languages sought EB-1A. Met two criteria: judging and critical role. AAO dismissed because record lacked sufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A vocational agriculture teacher sought EB-1A classification. He claimed membership, scholarly articles, and critical role criteria. The AAO found he did not establish major award status or three alternate criteria. His association memberships did not require outstanding achievements, articles were unpublished or not in major media, and teaching work was not a critical role. Appeal dismissed.

Children's book author sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but director's final merits determination was incomplete and contradictory. AAO remanded case for director to conduct full analysis of all evidence and provide complete explanation for any denial.

An economic historian in Turkey and Germany with two books and scholarly articles sought EB-1A classification. Though meeting three initial criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim. One book publication seven years prior with 34 citations did not demonstrate top-tier field recognition required.

A human resources and labor researcher and professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed five criteria. The AAO affirmed denial, finding she satisfied only judging and scholarly articles, failing to meet the three-criterion threshold and showing no sustained national or international acclaim characteristic of the top tier.