Published AAO appeal decisions

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

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.

A tennis player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification with two initial criteria met. She claimed membership in national team and leadership role on university team. The AAO affirmed denials on both: national team membership lacks expert judgment; university team lacks distinguished reputation. Only two criteria met; three required minimum.

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.

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.

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.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

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.

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.

Dance choreographer sponsored by dance studio for O-1A visa. Claimed significant awards and multiple evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized award and failure to meet at least three alternative criteria required for extraordinary ability.

An administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Awards were local and job-performance based; judging involved supervising subordinates, not evaluating work in the same field; no evidence of national acclaim or top-tier standing.

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.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria beyond the initial set. The AAO affirmed denial, finding membership not established, original contributions not evidenced, leading role lacking sufficient detail, and other criteria unmet. Appeal dismissed.

A music composer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted published material and leading or critical role, and the appeal contested awards and display of work. The AAO dismissed it because only two criteria were met, fewer than the three needed, and reserved the final merits determination.

Social entrepreneur assisting artisans in Pakistan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one. AAO held petitioner did not satisfy minimum three criteria required; appeal dismissed without final merits determination.

Entrepreneur in business and immigration investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found published material deficient due to missing metadata and post-filing dates, original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance, and petition failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

An accountant and business operations manager claims extraordinary ability and seeks EB-1A classification. She claimed three criteria but failed to establish high salary requirement because comparative data did not match her actual position. The AAO dismissed without analyzing two other claimed criteria.

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.

Judo coach sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding no major award, only one of five claimed criteria met, and insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim placing petitioner in top of field.

Market research analyst and communication specialist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found student award lacked requisite national recognition and contributions showed only prospective rather than established significance. Could not meet three-criterion minimum. Appeal dismissed.

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.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding no one-time major international award and only two criteria arguably satisfied (awards and published material); documents lacked proper authentication and evidence did not show national or international recognition required for sustained acclaim.

Kazakh actress claimed seven EB-1A criteria. AAO found awards and membership criteria not met; other claimed criteria were not analyzed. Overall, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position at top of acting field required for extraordinary ability classification.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.