Published AAO appeal decisions

Cybersecurity and Internet of Things researcher met initial three-criterion threshold but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work at field's top.

An editor with a doctoral degree in editing and publishing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. The AAO found no major award and rejected membership, published material, and other criteria as not meeting regulatory standards, dismissing the appeal because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

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.

Software engineer claimed five criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found three criteria met: judging, original contributions (patent), and scholarly articles. However, final merits determination concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim; patent represents employment duty, not independent achievement. Appeal dismissed.

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.

A parachuting athlete claimed extraordinary ability based on professional recognition over 15 years. The AAO confirmed he met three evidentiary criteria but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim consistent with the top percentage of his field.

Advanced data scientist seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria; three were met. AAO found three criteria satisfied the initial requirement but held that totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim, top-tier status, or career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

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 tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Financial advisor self-petitioner appealed EB-1A denial. AAO found petitioner satisfied none of ten initial evidentiary criteria, rejecting claims of awards, memberships, publications, and judging experience. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidence requirement needed for 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 postdoctoral bioelectronics researcher specializing in protein nanowires sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

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.

Molecular biologist in computational biology claimed three criteria. AAO found petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions of major significance, as letters lacked evidence of realized or implemented contributions, and citations alone without field context do not establish major significance. With only two criteria met, appeal was dismissed.

Director of English for Academic Purposes Program claims extraordinary ability through judging and scholarly articles, and leading role at university. AAO affirmed that judging and articles met criteria but rejected leading role claim because the university's distinguished reputation was insufficiently demonstrated. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; appeal dismissed.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Computer scientist petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established two of ten initial criteria: published material and judging. AAO held original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and salary evidence lacks adequate comparative context. Failed to meet threshold of three criteria.

A venture capital investment manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four criteria but met only the high-salary criterion. The AAO affirmed the denial because he satisfied only two criteria, falling short of the three required before final merits analysis, and dismissed the appeal.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.

A cybersecurity engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.