Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

Financial analyst seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three of ten criteria. AAO found no major international award and rejected high salary criterion on improper comparison basis, leaving petitioner below three-criterion threshold. Reserved remaining criteria. Dismissed appeal.

A civil engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

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 High salary finding was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation.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 karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

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.

Elementary school teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed original contributions, scholarly articles, and high salary. AAO found only scholarly articles criterion met, falling short of the three required to proceed to final merits determination. Appeal dismissed.

A ballroom dance choreographer claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability, already meeting two. The AAO upheld denials for awards lacking national or international recognition, membership not judged by recognized experts, and salary not shown high relative to the field. With only two criteria met, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

A systems engineer in education technology sought extraordinary ability classification for developing an e-learning platform. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and failed to establish original contributions of major significance in the field.

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.

Brazilian lawyer and business owner claims EB-1A extraordinary ability based on legal practice and labor reform publications. AAO held she failed to meet three required criteria; awards lack field-specific recognition and comparative salary data absent for self-employed practitioners.

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 pilot and aviation consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria but failed to establish any. Pilot certification is not association membership; employer companies lack documented distinguished reputation; salary evidence compared pilots not consultants. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient initial evidence.

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.

Drilling engineer and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO affirmed denial, finding awards lacked recognition, article was promotional, and salary claims ignored remuneration requirement. Overall work did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim at extraordinary ability level.

A chief financial officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found she satisfied only the leading critical role criterion but failed to meet membership, published material, and high salary criteria. Without three criteria met, final merits determination was not reached. Appeal dismissed.

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

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.

Senior security engineer claiming extraordinary ability in IT security. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied only two: judging and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, outstanding achievements through memberships, or published materials meeting regulatory standards. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at field's top.

An educator with a PhD in engineering seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial because she met only one of seven claimed criteria and has not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.