Published AAO appeal decisions

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A general management executive sought extraordinary ability classification. She met only one criterion (leading critical role). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her evidence of membership, judging, and original contributions did not meet regulatory requirements and insufficient overall evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A business analyst employed as a director sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria, meeting three initially. The AAO found the judging criterion met but the original contributions criterion not met. On final merits, the AAO held the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A development director sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found three criteria met: leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. However, final merits analysis found judging experience lacked demonstrated impact on field and served as internal review only. Insufficient to show sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Foreign trade executive and CEO of Brazilian trading company seeks extraordinary ability classification in business. Claims six additional criteria beyond judging. AAO affirms only judging criterion met; record does not establish three required criteria or sustained international acclaim.

A consumer audio company petitioned for O-1A classification for its founder and CEO with a Ph.D. in computer science. The AAO found only the judging criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the beneficiary lacked extraordinary ability in business or sciences without major award or three qualifying criteria.

A financial advisor seeking EB-1A classification claimed seven criteria. The AAO found none met: awards lacked national recognition, membership did not require outstanding achievements, judging was undocumented, original contributions were company-specific not field-significant, articles were unsubstantiated, exhibition claims unproven, and salary data did not match her field. Appeal dismissed.

An attorney specializing in claims management in the United Kingdom sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed three criteria: judging, leading role, and published material. The AAO sustained, finding all three criteria met and sustained international acclaim establishing him among the very top in his field.