Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

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.

Exercise trainer and group fitness instructor with rhythmic gymnastics coaching background claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed rejection of awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. Insufficient evidence of national/international acclaim or top-tier status despite experience in field.

Administrative services and facilities manager claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found certificates of appreciation lack national or international recognition, no judging participation, and no distinguished role. Reference letters unsupported by documentary evidence; lacks required sustained acclaim.

A photographer sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: published material in major media, judging, and display at exhibitions. However, the appeal was dismissed because the final merits determination revealed insufficient sustained acclaim and recognition to place the petitioner among the very top of the field.

A vocalist and musician sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion to reopen, the AAO dismissed after confirming she did not meet three required evidentiary criteria, finding no nationally recognized awards, ineligible membership, insufficient published material documentation, and no evidence of commercial success.

Chemical engineer and materials scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria: awards lacked national recognition and were student-level; membership criteria did not reflect outstanding achievement judgment.

Logistics consulting executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, original contributions, and leading roles. AAO withdrew director errors on intent and benefit findings but upheld award criterion failure: personal receipt unproven; award lacked national recognition. With only two criteria potentially met, threshold of three not reached; original contributions and leading role claims reserved.

Software engineer in Canada employed by Twilio met two of four claimed criteria but not three required. AAO rejected awards claim, rejected comparable evidence argument for awards, rejected salary claim with new evidence, and dismissed without final merits review.

Data scientist claimed five criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability. SCOPS and AAO found only one criterion met (high salary), then withdrew it on appeal. AAO determined petitioner failed to meet three required criteria and dismissed without final merits analysis.

A taekwondo athlete and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top despite participation in tournaments since 2002.

A project management specialist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: awards, original contributions and leading role. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he moved to reopen with an online article about a mayoral letter. The motion was dismissed because nothing showed the letter was a nationally or internationally recognized award.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.

Concert pianist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of seven claimed criteria (published material and judging). AAO rejected awards, membership, and leading role claims for lack of specificity or documentation; final merits determination held record insufficient for extraordinary ability.