Published AAO appeal decisions

A dance coach self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied the petition for failing to meet three criteria. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to analyze all claimed criteria and did not provide reasoned explanation, denying the petitioner meaningful appellate review.

Biophysics researcher appealed USCIS EB-1A denial. USCIS found fewer than three criteria met. AAO held researcher met three initial criteria; USCIS underweighted original contributions evidence. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim at field's top.

Business development executive and entrepreneur in technology-driven fitness and wellness ventures claims extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; Service Center found two met. AAO found three criteria met on de novo review, satisfying initial evidence requirement. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Special effects artist and animator in motion design and AI-driven visual communication sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (published material, judging, scholarly articles), withdrew SCOPS denials, and remanded for final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

A pediatric cardiologist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS found only two criteria met; AAO reversed on published material, establishing three criteria. The threshold satisfied, AAO remands for final merits determination evaluating sustained national or international acclaim and whether petitioner ranks among the very top in the field.

Self-petitioning floral designer with fifteen years of experience sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found she met three evidentiary criteria (awards, judging, exhibitions), satisfying the initial threshold. The decision withdrew SCOPS' denial and remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence establishes sustained acclaim placing her among the top percentage in floral design.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.

Technology company petitioned for CTO classified as extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. SCOPS found two criteria met; AAO found judging criterion also satisfied. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile status after establishing three evidentiary criteria.

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

Clinical director in implant dentistry petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found only one met. AAO found beneficiary also met judging and critical role criteria on de novo review. Case remanded for final merits determination assessing whether sustained acclaim and top-tier status demonstrated.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.

A biophysical chemist specializing in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and membrane proteins appealed SCOPS denial of EB-1A petition. Petitioner claimed original contributions of major significance. AAO found the criterion met based on expert letters, high citations, and patent commercialization, satisfied three evidentiary thresholds, and remanded for final merits determination.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

A composer claimed extraordinary ability in film and television composition. AAO remanded, finding three criteria met (published material, judging, scholarly articles) and requiring final merits determination. SCOPS erred by excluding educational work from initial criteria analysis when sufficiently related to composition work.

Assistant professor and neurodegenerative disease researcher with fifteen years experience claiming extraordinary ability. Service center determination lacked reasoned explanation and contained factual inaccuracies regarding her qualifications and publication record. AAO remanded for service center to conduct full, properly reasoned review of all claimed criteria.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

Professional underwater rugby player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found three met (awards, membership, published material), meeting the regulatory minimum. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim.

Cardiologist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found two met. AAO added high salary criterion, reaching three total, then remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim and top-of-field status.

Physicist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found two criteria met but rejected original contributions claim. AAO remanded because service center misapplied national interest waiver analytical framework to extraordinary ability petition and failed to adequately explain why supporting letters and evidence were insufficient for original contributions criterion.

A cybersecurity expert claimed six EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found two met; AAO confirmed two and identified a third criterion met, satisfying initial evidence requirements. The AAO remanded for final merits analysis of whether the petitioner demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim.

Senior software engineer at AI-driven background check company appealed EB-1A denial. Service Center initially found three criteria met, then in denial found only one met, without adequate explanation. AAO remanded for fuller analysis of each criterion and potential final merits determination, citing insufficient notice and inadequate reasoning.

Cloud engineer specializing in supply chain management and computing seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew SCOPS findings on published material and salary criteria as unsupported, remanded for reconsideration of awards, judging, and original contributions criteria, and full final merits analysis of totality of evidence.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

Performing artist petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found two criteria met but provided conclusory analysis on three others without adequate discussion of specific evidence. AAO remanded for proper reevaluation of all claimed criteria and, if three are satisfied, a final merits determination.