Published AAO appeal decisions

A corporate executive sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but abandoned most on appeal. The AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met and insufficient evidence of high salary or additional achievements, concluding the executive failed to demonstrate the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Data scientist with master's degree in computer science; employed in software engineering roles in H-1B status. Met three criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO upheld denial, finding evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's elite despite meeting evidentiary threshold.

Tattoo artist filed motion to reconsider AAO dismissal of EB-1A appeal. AAO had found five criteria met but denied final merits. Motion contests one-time achievement and lesser awards determinations. AAO affirms second place award is not major or internationally recognized and petitioner has not shown sufficient national or international recognition of his awards.

Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.

Materials scientist petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to satisfy three additional criteria or hold a major award, thus lacking initial evidence requirements. AAO dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider because petitioner presented no new facts warranting reconsideration.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.

A remote sensing research scientist claimed five evidentiary criteria. SCOPS found three met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal on final merits, finding the petitioner is productive but lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

The beneficiary is a radiochemist sponsored by a biotechnology company for extraordinary ability classification. Six criteria were claimed, with two found satisfied by the service center. The AAO dismissed the appeal because awards, published material, and contributions were not established, leaving fewer than three criteria, and acclaim at the top of the field was not shown.

An archival researcher and producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of six claimed criteria: judging and artistic display. The AAO dismissed her appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that she represented a career of acclaimed work at the very top of her field.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed seven criteria; SCOPS found two met (leading role and high salary) but the AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner satisfied only two criteria when three minimum were required, and the overall evidence lacked sufficient quality and probative value.

Assistant professor of advertising seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria; met three (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed final merits step: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required to place her among field's top tier.

Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.

Salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor on third motion to reopen. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found insufficient sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field despite new evidence submission.

Electrical engineer in semiconductor power electronics sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria including scholarly articles, high salary, and judging work. However, AAO dismissed appeal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim necessary to establish placement among the small percentage at the field's very top.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

Entrepreneur and investor seeking extraordinary ability in business. Claimed judging, leading critical role, and original contributions. AAO affirmed judging was met but found leading role unsupported and reserved original contributions. Petitioner failed to meet required three-criterion threshold, so appeal dismissed.

Senior data scientist with advanced degrees seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria, but satisfied only two (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. AAO dismissed appeal because threshold evidence requirement was not met, declining to analyze final merits.

An honorary research professor in classical studies claimed seven evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the contested awards, membership, contributions and leading-role criteria unmet, so the three-criterion threshold failed and final merits were not reached.

A post-doctoral researcher in engineering mechanics sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only one of three claimed criteria and failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance, falling short of the three-criterion threshold.

Automotive technician and repairer claiming extraordinary ability in auto body design and restoration. Claimed five initial criteria plus one additional. AAO held petitioner meets only one criterion (judging); awards lack national recognition, membership fails requirements, published articles lack proper attribution. Does not meet three-criterion threshold.

A wealth management strategist and financial consultant claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. She met at least three criteria initially, but the AAO withdrew those determinations and found she failed to establish sustained acclaim or position among the elite in her field, dismissing the appeal.

A postdoctoral researcher in civil engineering met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found his peer review service, citations, and scholarly articles reflected expertise but not sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification. The record did not demonstrate he reached the very top percentage of the field.

An oil and gas mechanical engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although he satisfied three regulatory criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles), the final merits analysis found he lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top of his field.

Fencing club petitions for fencing master's O-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one of eight criteria met. Awards criterion failed because evidence showed students' achievements, not beneficiary's own. Judging criterion failed due to uncorroborated self-serving assertions. Appeal dismissed.