Published AAO appeal decisions

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.

Musician transitioning to music director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found petitioner met zero criteria; AAO affirmed that awards and membership claims failed and overall evidence did not establish sustained acclaim or elite status. Appeal dismissed.

A supermodel self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Demonstrated only one criterion: judging others' work. Failed to establish the three criteria required. AAO affirmed denial based on unmet evidentiary threshold.

Professional ballroom dancer and choreographer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria and met two: lesser awards and judging. AAO found published material criterion unmet because YouTube videos lack status as professional or major media, and association membership lacked documentary evidence of achievement requirements. With only two criteria met, petition failed three-criterion threshold.

A businessman claiming extraordinary ability was denied by service center. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for procedural defects. Subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were denied because petitioner submitted no new documentary facts or legal errors, only duplicative arguments and prior decisions.

An engineer seeking EB-1A classification for a startup thermal energy and heat pump systems business claimed two criteria. The AAO found neither the degree nor professional memberships satisfied the requirements and concluded the record does not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A model and pageant/fashion choreographer claimed four EB-1A criteria on appeal. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she met only the judging criterion and failed two others, thus falling below the three-criterion threshold required for extraordinary ability classification.

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.

A musician sought EB-1A classification by claiming eight criteria. The AAO found one criterion satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. The decision held that the petitioner lacked the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A dancer and dance instructor seeks EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria, but the AAO found the awards lacked national recognition and judging evidence was deficient. Two other criteria were reserved as not dispositive. The AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet either one major award or three of ten criteria, lacking sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A CEO of an aquaculture company transitioning from decades in information technology claims extraordinary ability. He claimed four criteria, but the AAO held only one was satisfied. The decision ruled his IT accomplishments lack nexus to his stated aquaculture field and rejected his scholarly article as unrelated.

Hospital petitions for rehabilitation therapist as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Petitioner claimed four of ten criteria. AAO held awards criterion unmet; certificates and scholarships limited to art students not rehabilitation therapy. Membership criterion unmet; honor societies lack required restrictions on outstanding achievements in field. Remaining criteria reserved as unnecessary.

A systems administrator specializing in cybersecurity claims extraordinary ability in cybersecurity and computer science. He claimed three criteria but satisfied only one. The AAO rejected his ISSA membership and scholarly articles evidence, finding insufficient documentation of extraordinary ability.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

A Russian-trained musician seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. He claimed five criteria but only addressed awards on appeal. The AAO found he failed to satisfy three of ten criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

A software developer specializing in 3D digital scanning since 1998, working as CTO for a major dental scanning company, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found three criteria met and, reviewing the record holistically, determined the evidence established sustained national acclaim and top-tier status. Appeal sustained.

A Kyrgyz history and culture scholar claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. Director found evidentiary criteria met but denied on final merits. AAO sustained denial, finding the petitioner accomplished but not among the very top of the field despite national recognition and publications.

Music event producer claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. Director found only judging criterion met. Petitioner appealed with new evidence on awards, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO affirmed dismissal: awards lacked field recognition, exhibitions were not artistic in nature, and only one criterion met precluded the three-criterion threshold.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

A youth soccer league employer-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability for a soccer coach beneficiary. Claimed five evidentiary criteria; none met. Record lacks personal awards, qualifying membership evidence, and published material in major outlets. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national acclaim or upper-echelon status required for extraordinary ability.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet major award criterion and could not satisfy three initial criteria. Tournament awards in Master division lack sufficient context and do not demonstrate excellence. No final merits analysis reached.

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 digital influencer with content on TikTok and YouTube sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claiming seven criteria, she established none sufficiently. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material, original contributions, and commercial success findings; high salary and judging were not analyzed. Without three criteria met, she failed the initial requirement and was ineligible.

Long-distance runner sought EB-1A classification claiming extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal finding one criterion met but aggregate evidence insufficient; runner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among small percentage at field top.