Published AAO appeal decisions

International consultant and policy analyst self-petitioner claimed four alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO upheld USCIS denial, finding petitioner met only the leading role criterion but failed on awards, published material, and original contributions. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; final merits declined.

A legal consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six regulatory criteria including awards, published materials, and original contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards lacked national or international recognition and published materials documentation was incomplete; because the petitioner failed to establish three initial criteria, final merits were not reached.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.

A journalist from Kazakhstan with roles as poet, writer, and performer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding she did not establish three of ten criteria: no major award, membership organizations lack required standards, and blog posts do not constitute scholarly articles. Threshold not met; final merits not reached.

A corporate attorney sought EB-1A classification claiming two additional criteria on appeal. The AAO found the award not nationally recognized in the legal field and the salary comparison methodologically flawed, remanding for SCOPS to allow the attorney to cure the evidentiary deficiency regarding remuneration before determining if additional criteria were met.

A Kazakh law professor sought EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Although meeting three evidentiary criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and high salary—the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the highest level.

A former judge seeks extraordinary ability classification based on judicial work in Armenia. The AAO found the petitioner met only the original contributions criterion and one criterion already accepted by the service center, falling short of the required three criteria. Appeal dismissed because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.

A humanitarian and social worker claimed extraordinary ability under three EB-1A criteria: awards, judging, and leading roles. The AAO affirmed the denial, finding the awards lacked demonstrated national or international recognition. With only two criteria claimed and one rejected, the petitioner could not meet the minimum three required criteria, so remaining criteria and final merits were not addressed.

Social worker seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Claimed authorship of scholarly articles and leading role in established organization. AAO found unpublished manuscripts and insufficient evidence of distinguished organizational reputation; failed to meet three required criteria; appeal dismissed.

A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A tax consultant with a law degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found her honors and publications did not meet regulatory standards and her achievements, while notable in academia, lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed five criteria and the director found one met. The AAO agreed only one criterion was satisfied and found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal based on uncorroborated assertions and limited objective documentation.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

A self-identified social reformer seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed three criteria but met none. Awards from local charitable organizations not nationally or internationally recognized. Petition failed minimum evidentiary threshold; AAO did not reach final merits or remaining claimed criteria.

Human rights lawyer and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Claimed eight criteria; director found three met. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim through dedicated career attracting high-level attention and respect, with intent to continue work benefiting the United States.

Social worker and women's rights advocate claimed awards, membership, published material, and high salary criteria. The AAO rejected awards as decade-old and organizationally-based, membership as lacking outstanding achievement requirements, articles as incompletely translated, and salary as not clearly tied to social work. Evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-represented diplomat and physics instructor sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish three regulatory criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field despite diplomatic achievements.

Diplomat and physicist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. AAO rejected reliance on ambassador rank as award, found published materials insufficient, and concluded contributions lacked major significance. Evidence showed talent but not achievements distinguishing petitioner at top of field.