Published AAO appeal decisions

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Business development executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria; director found only judging satisfied. AAO affirmed that published book was not scholarly article, original contributions lacked major significance in field, and evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.