Published AAO appeal decisions

Business operations specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria initially: leading role and high salary. On appeal, claimed published material criterion but AAO found translations inaccurate and uncertified. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two criteria.

A mathematical researcher petitioned by a financial management business for EB-1A classification. Four criteria were met: judging, scholarly articles, critical role, and high salary. However, the AAO dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

A software developer and financial analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only one of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required at top of field.

An artist agent, who is also a professor of studio arts, petitioned for a fine artist under the O-1 classification for extraordinary ability in the arts. This is O-1B, not O-1A. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not satisfy three of the alternative regulatory criteria.

Art curator and architect sought EB-1A classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only two of six claimed criteria. Petitioner failed to establish three criteria minimum and abandoned architecture for art curation and fashion accessories, showing insufficient intent to continue in claimed field of extraordinary ability.