Published AAO appeal decisions

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.

Financial technologist and CEO of self-owned fintech firm from Dominican Republic seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria; the AAO found membership and high salary unmet and deemed published material and scholarly articles waived. Without three criteria met, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching overall extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

Business consultant and executive self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reopen because evidence was either available during original RFE or postdated the petition filing, violating the requirement to establish eligibility at time of petition.

A business consultant mentoring immigrant entrepreneurs claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found he did not meet the threshold of three evidentiary criteria and, alternatively, that he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top of his field.

A real estate broker seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claimed membership and high salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because she did not receive a major award, did not meet three alternative criteria, and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

A business executive in the pomegranate industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, finding the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria on published material and high salary, and did not meet the initial evidentiary threshold.

A business executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status based on nine claimed criteria, including awards, membership, and high salary. The AAO found no major award and rejected lesser prizes and membership as nationally or internationally recognized. High salary finding was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation. The petitioner did not meet the initial three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A Canadian business manager and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met zero evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability and lacked sustained national or international acclaim as required by statute.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

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.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only the leading or critical role criterion but failed awards, membership, judging, and high salary criteria. The decision dismissed the appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A human resources professional in Brazil sought EB-1A classification. She claimed five criteria: membership, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only judging was met and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

An international supply chain specialist sought EB-1A classification as extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed three criteria were satisfied but found the final merits analysis did not support extraordinary ability. The petitioner lacked sufficient documentation of national or international acclaim and top-tier status in the field.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

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 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.

CEO/manager in business sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. Director found only leading role established. AAO dismissed, holding high salary claim failed due to inadequate comparison data and insufficient differential from survey averages.

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 real estate broker sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed appeal on procedural grounds: petitioner failed to address errors in the Director's motion dismissal decision. On substantive review, salary evidence showed above-average earnings but lacked comprehensive comparative data required.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.