Published AAO appeal decisions

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

Marketing manager in digital commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed SCOPS denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Culinary writer and social media content developer self-petitioner met only published material criterion; failed to meet three criteria required for extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed because high salary claim lacked comparative data and commercial success claim did not fit performing arts sales standard; prior O-1 approval did not bind I-140 review.

A marketing director met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO affirmed SCOPS' reasoned consideration of evidence, including letters provided in response to notice of intent to deny. The petitioner made general unsupported assertions of error and provided no additional evidence that sustained national or international acclaim was established.

Journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; established only two: judging and leading critical role. Awards insufficient documentation; no evidence of national recognition. High salary claim lacked comparable industry data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

A marketing and communications professional claimed seven initial criteria for extraordinary ability but failed to submit a required appellate brief identifying specific errors in the four-page denial decision. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for lack of specificity, as petitioner made only general assertions without identifying contradictory evidence or explaining how evidence overcame stated grounds for denial.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Public relations professional with nearly twenty years in media and senior international roles sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established three criteria at threshold and presented additional published materials evidence. AAO found petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and achieved career of acclaimed work in field, qualifying as among small percentage at top.

A journalist and brand manager claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied initially but concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the top percentage in journalism, dismissing the appeal.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.

TV and film development consultant claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found she met two of three needed criteria but evidence of sustained acclaim was largely pre-1996, lacking recency, and insufficient to show she ranked among the very top in her field.