Published AAO appeal decisions

Artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for studio and gallery work. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met only one of ten required criteria and failed to demonstrate major award or sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.

Entrepreneur seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for ventures in car rental, used cars, travel, and e-commerce. Claimed four criteria but Director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or critical organizational roles and no documentation of high remuneration.

Fashion model with O-1 nonimmigrant status sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding she satisfied only one of ten initial evidentiary criteria; comparable evidence argument without demonstrating inapplicability of specific criteria was rejected; insufficient proof of sustained acclaim.

Machine learning software executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO upheld denial because petitioner failed to establish three initial evidentiary criteria. Evidence of awards, original contributions, and scholarly impact insufficient due to lack of documentation and independent recognition.

A pastry chef self-petitioner sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. The petitioner claimed four criteria on appeal. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet three criteria initially required and did not reach additional claimed criteria. No evidence demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field status.

A professional baseball player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed and met four criteria: awards, published material, critical role, and high salary. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner demonstrated sustained national acclaim and recognized achievements, qualifying him as among the small percentage at the top of professional baseball.

Plant accountant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. AAO found petitioner met only judging criterion but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not qualify for highly restrictive visa classification intended for individuals at top of field.

Restaurant general manager with twenty-five years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish major award or meet three of ten regulatory criteria, particularly membership with demonstrated outstanding achievements, judging, and high salary comparable to field peers.

Senior project manager in business management claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and high salary criteria but failed awards, membership, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of the required three alternate criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Vocational agricultural teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Initial petition denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria; appeal dismissed. Motion to reopen and reconsider sought reconsideration without identifying legal error and submitted job offer dated after petition filing, which cannot establish eligibility retroactively. Motion dismissed.

Professional baseball player in Dominican Republic claimed four criteria for EB-1A. AAO found awards and high salary met but rejected published material; membership not established. Only two criteria satisfied; three required. No sustained international acclaim shown.

Professional tennis player seeking extraordinary ability classification failed to establish either major award or three alternate criteria. Court found published material about competitive career insufficient since petitioner intended to work as coach, and salary comparison limited to Chinese players unconvincing. Appeal dismissed.

Senior director in business/economics seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, high salary) and demonstrated sustained acclaim at the very top of field through extensive documentation.

Personnel management consultant in Russian-speaking countries claimed five criteria under EB-1A. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and no satisfaction of three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity, objectivity, and documentation; petitioner showed no sustained national or international acclaim.

Folk and classical singer from Armenia claimed eight criteria beyond those Director found met. AAO affirmed Director's finding of two criteria met but found petitioner failed to establish three criteria total required. Final merits analysis concluded no sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating top-tier status.

Oil industry scientist self-petitioner with Ph.D. claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but rejected original contributions and high salary claims. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three-criterion threshold and lack of sustained acclaim.

Self-petitioner, physician specializing in clinical and other medicine, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten criteria: scholarly articles and judging. Failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as top practitioner. Record shows accomplished but not extraordinarily able physician.

Entrepreneur with twenty years accounting and finance experience in pharmaceutical industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. AAO held only two of ten criteria met; three-criterion threshold not satisfied; no major award or exceptional recognition; appeal dismissed.

Oil and gas construction specialist with master's degree sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed two criteria met but found petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary ability—lacking the sustained national or international acclaim required for the very top tier of the field.

An entrepreneur and researcher in cybersecurity on O-1 visa sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding he satisfied only two of ten criteria and thus failed the initial threshold, with aggregate review showing insufficient acclaim and recognition required for the classification.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

A visual effects artist and animator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification after remand. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner satisfied only two of three required criteria (display and high salary). The record did not demonstrate the sustained national/international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

Chemist and dietary supplement manufacturer claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner met only one criterion (scholarly articles published). Did not establish major significance of contributions; compounds lacked field-wide adoption; high remuneration claim uncorroborated. Record showed lack of sustained international acclaim or top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

Transplant surgeon seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; service center found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). AAO affirmed, finding remaining four criteria unsatisfied and concluding cumulative evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability at very top of field.