Published AAO appeal decisions

Medical director and research scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three evidentiary criteria through judging, scholarly articles, and high salary, but the AAO held she failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of her field.

A veterinarian sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. However, the AAO dismissed her appeal because the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she ranked among the very top of her veterinary field.

A contemporary oil painter claimed seven criteria; service center found four met. AAO affirmed denial, concluding the petitioner's exhibitions lacked prestige evidence, judging was preliminary-level only, and achievements did not distinguish him from peers or demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status.

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.

Art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Technology company petitioned for senior director in customer experience as EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer established at least three evidentiary criteria, but AAO found limited, recent evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field; appeal dismissed.

A cloud engineer sought extraordinary ability classification through five criteria. The AAO affirmed that she met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), did not meet the threshold of three required criteria, and lacked demonstrated sustained acclaim for the elite classification.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Clinical pharmacologist employed by biopharmaceutical company met three initial evidentiary criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating placement among the very top of field in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; appeal dismissed on final merits.

A life sciences and digital solutions executive met three initial EB-1A criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the field.

An enterprise software professional specializing in supply chain architecture sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary requirements were met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding the totality of the evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or top-of-field standing. The excerpt leaves the status of some individual criteria uncertain.

A radiation oncologist and clinical researcher claimed eight criteria. The service center accepted only scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because memberships, published material, judging and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria met, and it reserved the final merits determination.

Managing director in financial services risk management seeks EB-1A classification. Six of seven claimed initial criteria met but appeal dismissed in final merits analysis. Record shows noteworthy accomplishments but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

Petroleum reservoir and production engineer with expertise in hydraulic fracturing and pressure transient analysis claims extraordinary ability. Met five initial evidentiary criteria, exceeding three-criterion threshold. However, AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or elite accomplishment level required for extraordinary ability classification.

An occupational health and safety specialist appealed denial of EB-1A classification. The petitioner met criteria for judging and scholarly articles but failed to establish other claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

A soil science researcher claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO upheld denial, finding only two criteria met. Original contributions rejected because publication in ranked journals and citation metrics alone do not establish major significance in the field without broader field recognition.

Legal researcher and lecturer in human rights law claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met. AAO affirmed four criteria were satisfied but held applicant failed final merits analysis, finding insufficient sustained acclaim and failure to demonstrate position among very top of field.

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 specialist in prevention and investigation of financial crimes and money laundering sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any of the claimed eight initial criteria and could not meet the three-criterion threshold; final merits determination also failed.

Financial risk specialist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found judging and original contributions met; AAO withdrew both findings, concluding judging students does not meet regulatory requirements and contributions lacked evidence of significant impact. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold.

A crop pathologist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO affirmed only scholarly articles as met, withdrew the USCIS finding on judging, and rejected published materials. With only one criterion met, the petitioner fell short of the three-criterion threshold and was ineligible; final merits analysis was not reached.

Cybersecurity engineer employed as head of detection engineering sought EB-1A classification. Met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top percentage level.

A cultural diplomacy expert with master's degrees in public administration and peace studies seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner submitted minimal or no credible evidence for any criterion, relying on unsupported assertions rather than documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Electrical engineer with master's and doctoral degrees from Iran proposing renewable energy research. AAO held petitioner satisfied only two of ten criteria (judging, scholarly articles); failed to establish original contributions of major significance; appeal dismissed.