Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Artist manager who is founder and CEO of an organization seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met published material and leading role criteria but not high salary. Because he did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria, final merits analysis showed he lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Self-petitioner protective security provider sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one criterion (high salary) but needed three; remaining claimed criteria failed. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.