Published AAO appeal decisions

Systems development manager in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; AAO found only judging criterion met, fewer than three required. Appeal dismissed; petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

Transit-oriented development executive self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Although satisfying four initial criteria for published material, judging, scholarly articles, and high remuneration, the AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Financial executive claimed nine evidentiary criteria. AAO found three criteria met including judging, critical role, and scholarly articles on appeal. Final merits determination found evidence of some recognition insufficient to establish sustained national or international acclaim among very top of field.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

Medical health services manager seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed USCIS finding of four criteria met but held petitioner failed final merits determination; lacks career of sustained acclaimed work and evidence of recognition at very top of field.

A senior software engineer in artificial intelligence and cloud computing claimed extraordinary ability and met three evidentiary criteria at service center level. On appeal, the AAO reviewed totality of evidence including technical innovations, scholarly works, and professional leadership. The AAO found insufficient demonstration of sustained national or international acclaim or elite status and dismissed.

A cybersecurity specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three alternate criteria but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding peer review activities isolated, published articles lacked prestige, and compensation lacked proper contextualization.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

Physician, public health expert and entrepreneur with MD and recent MPH claimed five criteria but met only two. AAO affirmed denial, finding membership and original contributions criteria unsatisfied. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Soccer coach and former player sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, holding petitioner met only two of ten required initial criteria, that sustained acclaim must be in declared field of expertise (coaching, not playing), and career lacks required level of acclaim.

Taekwondo instructor self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO withdrew service center's affirmative findings on three criteria and affirmed failure to meet others, concluding petitioner failed to satisfy the minimum three criteria threshold without reaching final merits.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A petitioner sought to establish extraordinary ability for their beneficiary, claiming satisfaction of regulatory criteria without a major award. Although the service center found three criteria met, the AAO withdrew one finding on published material and found the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

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.

Neuroscientist with doctorate and postdoctoral experience seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Satisfied three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles and original contributions. AAO held final merits analysis failed because citation records and institution prestige do not establish sustained national acclaim or placement in very top of field.

Managing director of electric vehicle repair and customization shop. Claimed seven evidentiary criteria including awards and published material. AAO found none met. Awards lacked national recognition; published material articles mostly not about petitioner or from non-major media. Appeal dismissed.

Healthcare consultant and platform developer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he met minimum evidentiary criteria but did not demonstrate the sustained national or international acclaim and recognition required to place him among the small percentage at his field's top.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both, finding no new facts and no incorrect application of law or policy, only reargument of issues already considered.

A lead application developer in enterprise software and analytics sought EB-1A classification, claiming seven criteria. The service center accepted judging, scholarly articles and salary, then denied on final merits. The AAO agreed, finding the record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing, and dismissed the appeal.

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

An employer petitioned for a technology entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability (EB-1A). Claimed seven criteria initially; director found two met (judging, leading role). On appeal, petitioner claimed five others. AAO found awards and membership unmet and declined to analyze remaining criteria, reserving final merits because threshold initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

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.

Technology startup founder seeking EB-1A classification claimed eight evidentiary criteria; SCOPS found six met and AAO confirmed leading role criterion. However, AAO rejected the petition because sustained national or international acclaim was not demonstrated, with nearly all achievements from 2024-2025 and recognition limited to startup ecosystems, failing final merits review.