Published AAO appeal decisions

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

An international supply chain specialist sought EB-1A classification as extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed three criteria were satisfied but found the final merits analysis did not support extraordinary ability. The petitioner lacked sufficient documentation of national or international acclaim and top-tier status in the field.

Senior security engineer claiming extraordinary ability in IT security. Petitioner claimed seven criteria but satisfied only two: judging and high salary. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of national or international recognition, outstanding achievements through memberships, or published materials meeting regulatory standards. Record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at field's top.

An educator with a PhD in engineering seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial because she met only one of seven claimed criteria and has not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Software developer and entrepreneur claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at field's top.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

Dance choreographer sponsored by dance studio for O-1A visa. Claimed significant awards and multiple evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding insufficient evidence of nationally or internationally recognized award and failure to meet at least three alternative criteria required for extraordinary ability.

An administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Awards were local and job-performance based; judging involved supervising subordinates, not evaluating work in the same field; no evidence of national acclaim or top-tier standing.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

Truck and heavy machinery mechanic sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only one of four claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

Market research analyst and communication specialist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found student award lacked requisite national recognition and contributions showed only prospective rather than established significance. Could not meet three-criterion minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

An architect and senior care facility design manager claimed four criteria and met three minimum requirements. The AAO found petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim, career of acclaimed work, or elite standing despite satisfying judging, scholarly articles, and leading role criteria. Publications lacked demonstrated impact and judging experience was limited.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.

Exercise trainer and group fitness instructor with rhythmic gymnastics coaching background claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO affirmed rejection of awards, membership, published material, and judging criteria. Insufficient evidence of national/international acclaim or top-tier status despite experience in field.

Administrative services and facilities manager claimed three criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found certificates of appreciation lack national or international recognition, no judging participation, and no distinguished role. Reference letters unsupported by documentary evidence; lacks required sustained acclaim.

A photographer sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: published material in major media, judging, and display at exhibitions. However, the appeal was dismissed because the final merits determination revealed insufficient sustained acclaim and recognition to place the petitioner among the very top of the field.

Software engineer in Canada employed by Twilio met two of four claimed criteria but not three required. AAO rejected awards claim, rejected comparable evidence argument for awards, rejected salary claim with new evidence, and dismissed without final merits review.

A taekwondo athlete and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met two criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top despite participation in tournaments since 2002.

Television editor and post-producer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Service center found four criteria met; AAO found five criteria met. However, final merits determination failed: articles published only in 2023–2024, judging service occurred three times in two years, and awards confined to 2019–2022. Insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim over 18-year career.

A chief executive of a vehicle parts supply company sought EB-1A classification in business, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted only high salary. The AAO rejected awards, membership, published material and scholarly articles, did not reach the leading role criterion, and dismissed because three criteria were not met.

A bioinformatics doctoral candidate and researcher sought EB-1A classification. Evidence met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the final merits analysis showed insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and that applicant was not among the small percentage at the very top of his field.