Published AAO appeal decisions

A historian and rabbi in Jewish studies sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because the petitioner satisfied none of four claimed evidentiary criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or positioning among the very top of the field.

A contemporary oil painter claimed seven criteria; service center found four met. AAO affirmed denial, concluding the petitioner's exhibitions lacked prestige evidence, judging was preliminary-level only, and achievements did not distinguish him from peers or demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

Technology company petitioned for senior director in customer experience as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer established at least three evidentiary criteria, but AAO found limited, recent evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field; appeal dismissed.

An investment officer in the financial industry sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, leading roles, high pay and original contributions. The AAO withdrew the awards finding because only company awards were shown, left three criteria met, then dismissed the appeal for lack of sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

A public diplomacy professional claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria but met only membership. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner satisfied only one initial criterion and did not reach final merits, as threshold requirements were not met.

An investment portfolio manager claimed four EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied without adequately analyzing submitted evidence or explaining rejections. The AAO found SCOPS failed to address the plain language of the criteria with specificity and remanded for proper re-evaluation and meaningful opportunity for response.

An enterprise software professional specializing in supply chain architecture sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary requirements were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. The excerpt leaves the status of some individual criteria uncertain.

Managing director in financial services risk management seeks EB-1A classification. Six of seven claimed initial criteria met but appeal dismissed in final merits analysis. Record shows noteworthy accomplishments but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

An environmental scientist satisfied three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits test. The AAO held recent awards and memberships lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not demonstrate he ranked among the very top in the field, so the appeal was dismissed.

A hockey player from Russia self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification, having satisfied at least three initial criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence—youth and junior achievements, plus professional play in lower-tier leagues—failed to demonstrate he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Gospel music singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director found two criteria met (published material, exhibitions). AAO affirmed awards and membership criteria not met; petitioner failed to establish three criteria minimum. Final merits determination not reached; appeal dismissed.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

A pole and aerial sport performer and instructor claimed four extraordinary ability criteria: awards, published material, judging and exhibitions. On service motion after litigation, the AAO withdrew the earlier awards finding because competition placements were unsupported or not shown to be nationally recognized. It dismissed the appeal, finding neither the threshold nor sustained acclaim established.

A specialist in prevention and investigation of financial crimes and money laundering sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any of the claimed eight initial criteria and could not meet the three-criterion threshold; final merits determination also failed.

Food processing business manager and co-founder seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed multiple criteria including awards, membership, published material, judging, original contributions, and exhibitions. AAO found only published material criterion met; one of three required criteria insufficient to satisfy initial evidence requirement.

A crop pathologist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO affirmed only scholarly articles as met, withdrew the USCIS finding on judging, and rejected published materials. With only one criterion met, the petitioner fell short of the three-criterion threshold and was ineligible; final merits analysis was not reached.

Cybersecurity engineer employed as head of detection engineering sought EB-1A classification. Met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top percentage level.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten evidentiary criteria after multiple appeals. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and reconsider, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and did not identify legal errors in prior decisions.

A cultural diplomacy expert with master's degrees in public administration and peace studies seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner submitted minimal or no credible evidence for any criterion, relying on unsupported assertions rather than documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer with master's and doctoral degrees from Iran proposing renewable energy research. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles); failed to establish original contributions of major significance; appeal dismissed.