Published AAO appeal decisions

Photographer sought EB-1A classification. Satisfied four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite prizes and judging work.

Senior copywriter appeals denial of EB-1A petition. Claimed major award and four evidentiary criteria. AAO found no major internationally recognized award and only two criteria met; three required. Dismissing appeal because petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at the top of field.

A research scientist in machine learning and artificial intelligence self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. He met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to establish original contributions of major significance. The AAO dismissed, finding no evidence of sustained acclaim or top field status.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.

Assistant professor of chemistry sought extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria; two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three-criterion threshold and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite standing in chemistry.

A wedding and event planning company founder and CEO sought EB-1A claiming seven criteria. AAO found membership criterion unmet because association requirements reflect employment qualifications not outstanding achievements. Judging criterion failed as voting on applications does not constitute judging work in field.

Financial journalist and brand management executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed on leading role and high salary. AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or top field position. Appeal dismissed.

Biomedical technology company petitions for senior research specialist in cancer research for O-1A visa. Satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions of major significance criterion. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability.

A business executive in China sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria and the AAO found three met. However, the decision rejected the final merits determination, holding she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the small percentage at the top of her field, though she held a high-ranking corporate position.

Business executive in engineering innovations and industrial sales seeks EB-1A. Claimed to meet awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO found certificate issued to employer not petitioner, advertisement about product not petitioner, and insufficient evidence of judging peers. Appeal dismissed.

Civil engineering researcher seeking EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field as required for extraordinary ability.

Wireless communications engineer met three evidentiary criteria but failed final merits determination. Accomplished career and peer support letters insufficient; objective documentation did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top field placement.

A rhetorical linguist with a Ph.D. seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria. The AAO found she met two (judging and scholarly articles) but not three required. The appeal was dismissed because her accomplishments do not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or place her among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

Illustrator and art director. Claimed extraordinary ability via awards, published material, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role. AAO found two criteria met but lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top small percentage placement, dismissing appeal.

An image consultant coaching beauty pageant contestants claimed five criteria, meeting only judging. The AAO found the remaining criteria unsatisfied and, in aggregate, lacked evidence of national or international acclaim, dismissing the appeal.

A patent agent employed in Massachusetts claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. The AAO found two criteria met but concluded original contributions lacked evidence of major significance despite high-impact publications and citations, falling short of the three-criterion minimum.

Computer scientist employed in data science seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed denial because applicant met only one of three required evidentiary criteria. Scholarly articles alone insufficient; no evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field placement.

A human resources manager at a cryptocurrency finance company sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed seven criteria; director found two met. AAO affirmed, rejecting membership in professional associations, judging participation, and scholarly articles as insufficiently documented, and found the aggregate record did not demonstrate the sustained acclaim required.

A postdoctoral researcher in biomedical engineering working on gene therapy sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO confirmed two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. The petitioner's claimed original contributions in gene therapy delivery were rejected as lacking evidence of major significance or field impact, failing the threshold of three criteria.

Senior mobile applications developer claimed extraordinary ability via seven criteria. Failed membership, published material, judging, artistic display, and salary criteria. Did not reach leading role or original contributions claims. Record lacks sustained acclaim and top-tier status for developer.

A general management executive sought extraordinary ability classification. She met only one criterion (leading critical role). The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding her evidence of membership, judging, and original contributions did not meet regulatory requirements and insufficient overall evidence of sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

A business analyst employed as a director sought EB-1A classification. He claimed five criteria, meeting three initially. The AAO found the judging criterion met but the original contributions criterion not met. On final merits, the AAO held the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

An orthopedic surgeon seeking extraordinary ability classification as scientific advisor met only one of required three criteria through judging. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not establish high salary comparatives or critical role at a distinguished institution, and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A fashion model claims extraordinary ability. She met only the judging criterion but failed awards, published material, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading role criteria. She lacked documentation for commercial success. With only one criterion met, she falls short of the three required.