Published AAO appeal decisions

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.