Published AAO appeal decisions

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 policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

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.

Financial advisor self-petitioner appealed EB-1A denial. AAO found petitioner satisfied none of ten initial evidentiary criteria, rejecting claims of awards, memberships, publications, and judging experience. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidence requirement needed for final merits determination.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

Global health specialist seeks extraordinary ability classification to establish aging healthcare services company. Claimed nine criteria; service center found two met. AAO affirms only two criteria satisfied, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

A media entrepreneur working in digital marketing sought extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed many evidentiary criteria, and the appeal addressed awards, published material, original contributions and possibly scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence lacked award criteria, proof of major media status, and proof of contributions of major significance.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.