Published AAO appeal decisions

A Middle East analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical roles) but dismissed the appeal, concluding the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the field's very top.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.

A journalist from Kazakhstan with roles as poet, writer, and performer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding she did not establish three of ten criteria: no major award, membership organizations lack required standards, and blog posts do not constitute scholarly articles. Threshold not met; final merits not reached.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. The AAO found judging and contributions not met and declined to address the other two, dismissing for failure to satisfy the threshold of three criteria.

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

A Kazakh law professor sought EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Although meeting three evidentiary criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and high salary—the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the highest level.

Legal researcher and lecturer in human rights law claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met. AAO affirmed four criteria were satisfied but held applicant failed final merits analysis, finding insufficient sustained acclaim and failure to demonstrate position among very top of field.

A former judge seeks extraordinary ability classification based on judicial work in Armenia. The AAO found the petitioner met only the original contributions criterion and one criterion already accepted by the service center, falling short of the required three criteria. Appeal dismissed because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

A Brazilian attorney and law firm managing partner in transnational corporate law sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because, although the petitioner met three evidentiary criteria, the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he was among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A tax consultant with a law degree sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found her honors and publications did not meet regulatory standards and her achievements, while notable in academia, lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

A journalist and patron of the arts sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification but failed to identify a single field encompassing her journalism, stage production, and arts organizing activities. The AAO rejected her claims under judging, leading or critical role, and membership criteria, finding insufficient or inconsistent evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

An attorney, mediator, journalist and author claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Because three criteria are required, the appeal was dismissed without a final merits determination.

Attorney in South Africa with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner successful but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.