Published AAO appeal decisions

A Brazilian journalist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on eight criteria. The AAO found insufficient evidence for awards and published material criteria, with translation and documentation gaps. Lacking three met criteria, the petitioner was ineligible; final merits were not analyzed.

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

A digital media marketing strategist and agency founder claims extraordinary ability. She met four initial criteria (membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles) but failed on awards and final merits. AAO held her achievements from 2019–2025 lack the sustained, high-impact recognition required for this elite classification.

A short-form content creator with large social media presence claimed extraordinary ability but satisfied only two evidentiary criteria (published material and critical role). On appeal, the AAO rejected the awards criterion due to insufficient documentation of selection criteria and merit-based recognition. With fewer than three criteria met, the AAO declined to reach final merits and dismissed.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

A media entrepreneur working in digital marketing sought extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed many evidentiary criteria, and the appeal addressed awards, published material, original contributions and possibly scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence lacked award criteria, proof of major media status, and proof of contributions of major significance.

Content developer and influencer from Brazil sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria. Decision found only one criterion met and withdrew SCOPS finding on exhibitions. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy three required criteria.

Journalist and media manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria: no major award, membership evidence inadequate, and judging experience not equivalent to policy standard. Appeal dismissed, SCOPS denial affirmed.

Journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; established only two: judging and leading critical role. Awards insufficient documentation; no evidence of national recognition. High salary claim lacked comparable industry data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

A marketing and communications specialist claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found the Director correctly characterized her field as business rather than journalism and affirmed she failed to meet three of six claimed evidentiary criteria, falling below the minimum threshold required for final merits analysis.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

Social media influencer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner satisfied no evidentiary criteria. Platform Platinum status is objective threshold not requiring expert judgment; income alone insufficient for commercial success; record lacks evidence of sustained national acclaim or position at field's top tier.

A global brand and marketing communications director sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming nine criteria. The AAO found only the leading or critical role criterion satisfied, others unmet or waived, so the three-criterion threshold was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

A public relations professional claimed extraordinary ability for EB-1A classification. AAO found she failed to meet at least three of ten required criteria. Awards were attributed to employer, not individual. Membership evidence did not establish organizations require outstanding achievements by recognized experts. Record shows successful work but not sustained national or international acclaim.

A Nepali journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on nine criteria claims. The AAO found she did not satisfy the three-criterion threshold, finding no national or international recognition for her award, membership, published material, original contributions, or salary. Two additional criteria were claimed but not analyzed as the threshold failed.

Public relations director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and original contributions. AAO held she failed to meet at least three criteria: awards were organizational not individual, and membership evidence lacked required bylaws documentation.

A producer and journalist from Venezuela seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed six criteria. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that she met two (judging, artistic display) but rejected four others (awards, membership, published material, leading role) and concluded her work in local media did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the top tier.

A video journalist sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed that the awards and judging criteria were met but found membership, published material, exhibitions and leading role unmet. Overall, the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

A journalist specializing in railway coverage appealed EB-1A denial. Although Director found six criteria met, AAO withdrew four findings: the award lacked national recognition, published materials were about swimming not journalism, judging role was in unrelated field, and book launch was commercial not artistic. Final merits test failed.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

Marketing manager in OTT South Asian television sought EB-1A as individual of extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; director found only one met. AAO reversed director's leading role finding and found no other criteria satisfied. Narrowly defined field and insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A journalist and brand manager claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied initially but concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the top percentage in journalism, dismissing the appeal.