Published AAO appeal decisions

A wealth management strategist and financial consultant claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. She met at least three criteria initially, but the AAO withdrew those determinations and found she failed to establish sustained acclaim or position among the elite in her field, dismissing the appeal.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.

Karate coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. Prior appeal found two criteria met; matter reopened. Petitioner claimed seven additional criteria, but AAO found award certificates do not qualify and lack national recognition. Even with two prior criteria met, final merits analysis shows insufficient acclaim for top-level status in field.

Medical resident and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification based on six claimed criteria. Service center found only two criteria met; AAO affirmed, finding only judging and scholarly articles satisfied. Since fewer than three criteria were met, petitioner failed threshold initial evidence requirements, so final merits analysis was not needed. Appeal dismissed.

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 chemical biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eligibility under six criteria including awards, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found awards insufficient, original contributions not of major significance, leading role not established, and overall record lacking sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Business consultant and CEO from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met two criteria: lesser awards and judging. The AAO rejected original contributions as merely disseminating others' work and found articles non-scholarly. Because the petitioner met only two of ten required evidentiary criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.

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.

Helicopter pilot self-petitioner claimed six criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: awards, published material, and leading critical role. However, AAO denied the petition because evidence spanning only 2018–2024 does not establish sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A marketing director for a luxury resort wear company sought extraordinary ability classification through employer petition. Claimant submitted five criteria but failed three regarding awards, publications, and critical role. AAO declined final merits review after finding insufficient initial evidence threshold satisfaction.

A financial accountant claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A through multiple criteria. The AAO found only one criterion satisfied (scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Published material lacked major media publication, leading role lacked organizational distinction, and salary comparison data was inapplicable. Appeal dismissed.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and instructor with 40 years in the field claims extraordinary ability. Met two evidentiary criteria but failed to establish three required criteria: awards lack national recognition, leading role lacks distinguished organization evidence, and salary evidence insufficient. Appeal dismissed.

A radiologist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming lesser awards, original contributions and scholarly articles. The AAO accepted the scholarly articles criterion but found the awards and contributions criteria unmet for lack of recognition and major significance. Without three criteria, it dismissed the appeal and reserved the final merits.

Executive in sustainable energy technology with prior O-1 status claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found petitioner met high salary and leading role criteria but rejected the petition because evidence of publications, awards, and other accomplishments did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field over her career.

A professional pole dancer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed four criteria: awards, published material, judging, and exhibitions. The AAO found she failed to meet at least three criteria, specifically rejecting awards and published material as lacking probative evidence, and did not reach final merits analysis.

Ukrainian soccer coach claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed that the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among the very top in the field despite media coverage and training method adoption.

Pole fitness performer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Motions to reopen and reconsider challenged award recognition finding. AAO affirmed that pole fitness awards lack national or international recognition and that new evidence did not address insufficiencies; dismissed motions.

A hip-hop artist, music producer, and model from Russia sought EB-1A classification. The AAO confirmed three criteria met: awards, published material, and commercial success. However, the final merits determination found the totality of evidence insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

Cybersecurity and Internet of Things researcher met initial three-criterion threshold but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work at field's top.

A parachuting athlete claimed extraordinary ability based on professional recognition over 15 years. The AAO confirmed he met three evidentiary criteria but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim consistent with the top percentage of his field.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.