Published AAO appeal decisions

A veterinarian appealed motion to reopen extraordinary ability denial. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding no new facts warranting reopening. Though meeting three regulatory criteria at step one, the appellate decision properly found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing at step two.

Regulatory affairs manager in business seeks EB-1A. Petitioner claimed multiple criteria including awards, publications, judging, and high salary. AAO found at least three criteria met but concluded totality of evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

Former cricket player who competed internationally 2001-2007 sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of ten initial criteria but the AAO dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the very top of his field.

Software test automation engineer met all seven claimed initial criteria. However, AAO affirmed denial at final merits stage, finding evidence concentrated in 2024-2025 lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Work influence confined within company; does not demonstrate top-tier field standing.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.

Tattoo artist with black-and-gray specialization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial criteria including published material, judging, exhibitions, and remuneration. AAO found totality of evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Business management researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found four met but reversed SCOPS on two criteria (membership, published material), concluding threshold requirements unmet. Final merits determination reserved because initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

An MMA fighter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that while the petitioner met three initial criteria through awards, published material, and judging, the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Board-certified physician-scientist in rheumatology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed and met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. AAO dismissed appeal on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in field.

Audio engineer in Turkish film and television post-production with over ten years experience. Met four of eight claimed initial criteria. Final merits analysis found work within company recognized but lacked evidence of national or international attention or positioning among field's small elite percentage.

A business management specialist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed she met published material and judging criteria but rejected her high salary claim due to inadequate comparative wage data. With only two criteria met, she failed the three-criterion threshold and appeal was dismissed.

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.

A research scientist in machine learning and generative AI claimed six criteria. The service center accepted four of them, then denied the petition at the final merits stage. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the fellowship award and limited media coverage did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.

Data scientist in financial technology and artificial intelligence employed as vice president sought EB-1A classification. Met three criteria initially established by service center, but AAO withdrew the awards finding and found the totality of evidence insufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability and placement among the top percentage of the field.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

A materials scientist with expertise in polymer science and sustainable materials met three initial criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the totality of evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability.

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 management analyst appealed his EB-1A denial. He met only one criterion: judging. The AAO found he did not establish membership in qualifying associations, high comparative salary, or a leading role in distinguished organizations. Because he failed to meet the required three criteria at the initial evidence stage, the petition was dismissed without reaching the final merits analysis.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Psychologist and psychology school founder in Kazakhstan claims extraordinary ability. Met published material criterion and meets judging criterion on appeal review. Failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance or sufficient evidence on other criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner did not satisfy three initial evidentiary criteria threshold.

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.