Published AAO appeal decisions

Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach claimed four criteria on appeal. Service center found no criteria met. AAO confirmed petitioner failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence of awards, publications, and leadership roles insufficient. Petitioner does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

Electrical engineer in semiconductor power electronics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles, high salary, and judging work. However, AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary to establish placement among the small percentage at the field's very top.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

Karate coach seeking extraordinary ability classification. Prior appeal found two criteria met; matter reopened. Petitioner claimed seven additional criteria, but AAO found award certificates do not qualify and lack national recognition. Even with two prior criteria met, final merits analysis shows insufficient acclaim for top-level status in field.

A hematology and oncology physician claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability classification. Service center found two met. AAO affirmed that original contributions lacked major significance, critical role evidence was insufficient, and salary data did not support comparison to field. Petitioner did not satisfy the required three-criterion threshold.

A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.

A financial accountant claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A through multiple criteria. The AAO found only one criterion satisfied (scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Published material lacked major media publication, leading role lacked organizational distinction, and salary comparison data was inapplicable. Appeal dismissed.

Financial technologist and CEO of self-owned fintech firm from Dominican Republic seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria; the AAO found membership and high salary unmet and deemed published material and scholarly articles waived. Without three criteria met, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching overall extraordinary ability.

Executive in sustainable energy technology with prior O-1 status claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found petitioner met high salary and leading role criteria but rejected the petition because evidence of publications, awards, and other accomplishments did not establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field over her career.

Physical therapist and entrepreneur seeking to operate mobile therapy clinic claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Asserted three criteria: membership, leading role, and high salary. AAO analyzed only leading role and found insufficient evidence of role in distinguished organization. Did not analyze other criteria as petitioner could not meet three-criterion threshold.

An animation director seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Membership in claimed organizations lacked judgment by recognized experts, and leading/critical role in project-based work did not qualify, dismissing the appeal.

Pilot petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO found membership criterion not met because fellowship selection was not judged by recognized experts. High salary claim failed because compensation matched standard rates for comparable service. Petitioner met fewer than three required criteria, so appeal dismissed without final merits review.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

AI researcher and CEO sought EB-1A classification claiming four criteria; two were met. Motion to reconsider challenged findings on original contributions and high salary. AAO upheld prior dismissal, finding motion did not establish error in law or policy application.

A teacher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification (EB-1A). She claimed seven criteria including membership, judging, original contributions, authorship, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found none met: membership did not require outstanding achievements, original contributions lacked significance, article was not in major publication, and role was not critical at a distinguished organization.

Chinese architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but established none. AAO affirmed denial, finding record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for classification.

A director of product compliance at a school bus manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only a high salary criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found memberships, published material, contributions and scholarly articles unmet, leaving fewer than three criteria, and dismissed the appeal.

Performing artist petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found two criteria met but provided conclusory analysis on three others without adequate discussion of specific evidence. AAO remanded for proper reevaluation of all claimed criteria and, if three are satisfied, a final merits determination.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

A general manager in fund management seeking to establish a firm claimed four criteria; two were met. The AAO affirmed dismissal because the petitioner satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary criteria, failing to meet the threshold for extraordinary ability classification.