Published AAO appeal decisions

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

Chief legal officer in business law seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center erroneously excluded her under profession bar. AAO withdrew that decision and remanded, holding lawyers may qualify under EB-1A if their field is business rather than law practice, requiring reevaluation of claimed criteria and final merits.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

Medical researcher of rare diseases self-petitioned as EB-1A. Service center found only two of ten criteria met. AAO found original contributions of major significance criterion satisfied, withdrawing service center's contrary finding. However, because service center made no final merits determination on sustained acclaim, AAO remanded for full analysis of whether petitioner rises to very top of field.

A long-distance runner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming a major award and four criteria. The Director applied erroneous legal standards, dismissed media evidence without basis in regulation, and failed to review supplemental RFE evidence. AAO remanded for complete reconsideration.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.

A competitive swimmer sought EB-1A classification. The director found two criteria met; the AAO added a third by recognizing team captain role within a division as qualifying. With three criteria satisfied, the matter was remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Theatrical producer seeking EB-1A classification. Met four of ten initial criteria (published material, display, leading role, commercial success) but failed final merits analysis. Director's decision lacked thorough evaluation of all evidence and did not adequately explain why achievements failed to demonstrate small percentage at field top. Remanded for complete final merits analysis.

A soccer camp petitions for O-1A for a beneficiary transitioning from professional soccer player to coach. The AAO remanded because the Director improperly excluded athletic achievements in assessing extraordinary ability and erred in rejecting the gold medal as major award without requesting additional evidence on coaching eligibility.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

Engineering researcher seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial three criteria requirement. Director failed to properly conduct final merits determination by not addressing substantial evidence and applying incorrect standards. AAO withdrew Director's decision and remanded for comprehensive analysis of totality.

An entrepreneur in vehicle competition and recreation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO remanded because the Director failed to properly analyze several claimed criteria and applied unsupported evidentiary standards, particularly regarding published material and continuation of work in the United States.

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.

Self-petitioning children's book author and poet sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria beyond two granted by service center. AAO found petitioner meets three evidentiary criteria (awards, published material, judging) and remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.