Published AAO appeal decisions

A professor and researcher in technical science sought extraordinary ability classification. She claimed no major award and did not adequately support three required criteria on appeal. The AAO found willful misrepresentation in submitted documents and dismissed the appeal, noting serious errors unresolved when given opportunity to rebut.

Professional guitarist and music educator seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria. AAO affirmed service center findings that two criteria were met but dismissed appeal because only two criteria satisfied and three required; overall record does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among top of field.

A neuroscientist specializing in neurodegenerative diseases claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met, dismissing the appeal because the petitioner satisfied fewer than three required initial evidentiary criteria, precluding a final merits analysis.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

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 digital media marketing strategist and agency founder claims extraordinary ability. She met four initial criteria (membership, published material, judging, scholarly articles) but failed on awards and final merits. AAO held her achievements from 2019–2025 lack the sustained, high-impact recognition required for this elite classification.

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.

Enterprise architect self-petitioner claimed eight criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO confirmed three met criteria but held totality of evidence insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or membership among small percentage at field top.

Information technology manager from Argentina sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed three additional criteria beyond two previously found by SCOPS. AAO found petitioner did not meet at least three of ten criteria: withdrew judging criterion based on lack of actual participation evidence in conference archives, rejected original contributions criterion for lack of meaningful field impact, and found no basis for other claims. Appeal dismissed.

Aerospace researcher claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO found she met fewer than three criteria required and lacked sustained national or international acclaim at the top of her field, dismissing the appeal.

A site reliability engineer sought EB-1A classification. Four criteria were deemed waived, and the AAO withdrew the service center's favorable findings on judging and leading role, then rejected membership and original contributions. With fewer than three criteria met, the appeal was dismissed and final merits reserved.

An environmental science professor and researcher specializing in soil conservation and AI-powered monitoring systems sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and failed to establish the required three; final merits determination also failed.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

An accountant claimed extraordinary ability in business. Although service center found three criteria met, AAO affirmed denial because evidence of publications, editorial work, and awards clustered shortly before filing in 2025, failing to show sustained national or international acclaim required.

A synthetic organic chemist met at least three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits step. AAO found his judging experience and publications insufficient to show he rose to the very top of the field or enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim.

Information security associate vice president claimed seven criteria and satisfied three: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held initial evidence requirements met but final merits analysis showed insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

A dancer, choreographer, and coach met only two initial criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. AAO withdrew the service center's award finding and affirmed the final merits determination, dismissing the appeal.

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.

An endocrinology researcher sought EB-1A classification, claiming six criteria, of which the service center accepted three: judging, scholarly articles and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step, finding the peer review, editorial service and publication record did not show sustained acclaim or a place among the top.

Information security analyst IV with PhD sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary satisfied judging and authorship criteria but withdrew service center findings on leading role and high salary; did not meet threshold of three criteria; final merits determination not reached.

A data scientist employed at a tech company petitioned for EB-1A. The AAO found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold requirement of three initial evidentiary criteria. Only the awards criterion was analyzed and rejected; remaining criteria were not addressed as the first prong already failed.

An executive for a news organization in China petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed four criteria: published material, judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. The AAO found three criteria met but determined the totality of evidence failed the final merits test for sustained acclaim at the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.