Published AAO appeal decisions

Information technology service delivery manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner had invalid signature on Form I-290B. Substantively, although petitioner met two initial criteria, evidence demonstrated only local or organizational recognition, not the sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Classical music composer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits step. AAO held beneficiary did not sufficiently contextualize or compare accomplishments to other renowned composers to show sustained acclaim and elite status.

Risk analyst and doctoral student in business administration claimed EB-1A classification with three criteria met: published material, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found criteria satisfied but dismissed on final merits, concluding limited media coverage and recent peer review activity insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim at top of field.

Materials scientist with doctorate claimed four criteria and satisfied three: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the small percentage at the field's top.

Financial specialist in investment banking in China sought extraordinary ability in financial technology and cross-border investment. AAO upheld dismissal because petitioner failed to demonstrate three of ten required criteria; awards lacked recognition and original contributions were not shown to be major or industry-adopted.

Leadership and personal development consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found published material criterion met but judging and leading role criteria failed; overall evidence lacked sustained acclaim or elite positioning. Decision noted willful misrepresentation of material facts. Appeal dismissed.

An investment banker claimed extraordinary ability in his field. He met four regulatory criteria but failed on high salary and overall final merits. The AAO upheld dismissal, finding he is on a trajectory to reach the top but is currently a mid-career associate without demonstrated seniority, major deal leadership, or industry-wide reputation required for extraordinary ability.

A CEO of a clean energy company claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite satisfying initial criteria.

A software developer working in machine learning seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met (judging, authorship, leadership role, high salary). The AAO affirmed dismissal because the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement in the very top of the field.

A franchise development businessman sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed ten criteria and demonstrated two: published material and judging. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet at least three criteria, satisfied no major award, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Ph.D. student and research assistant in agriculture water management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria but not original contributions, falling short of three-criterion threshold. AAO found record does not establish acclaim required; appeal dismissed.

Health technology company petitions for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Beneficiary met six of eight claimed evidentiary criteria, but AAO affirmed denial, finding evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of technology entrepreneurship field.

Computer engineer with 2023 PhD in electrical engineering claimed three criteria. Two were accepted at service center level. AAO affirmed original contributions not met because citations and support letters reflect only incremental research progress, not widespread field recognition of major significance. Appeal dismissed.

Ph.D. candidate in computer science developing AI models for e-commerce claimed four criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material and original contributions. Limited field adoption and insufficient impact preclude extraordinary ability finding.

A postdoctoral researcher in machine learning and energy systems claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO held he met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed on original contributions and leading role, thus not meeting the three-criterion threshold.

Research scholar and professor claims extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field.

A photographer, visual strategist, and editor seeks EB-1A classification. The AAO found she met initial criteria but lacked sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary ability. The decision dismissed the appeal because the cumulative evidence did not place her among the small percentage at the top of her field.

Professor of applied linguistics sought EB-1A classification. Claimed six criteria; AAO found petitioner failed to satisfy at least three criteria by rejecting awards, published material, and original contributions findings. Withdrew SCOPS' favorable determinations on these three without reaching final merits given failure to meet evidentiary prongs.

Ceramic fabricator and contemporary artist blending cultural heritage with modern fabrication seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish three additional criteria including awards, membership, and published materials with credible evidence.

Ph.D. in biological and agricultural engineering claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability based on judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions. AAO affirmed Service Center finding that petitioner met only judging and articles criteria. Original contributions claim rejected because citation rates and professional letters did not establish widespread field commentary on significance.

A Middle East analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO found the petitioner met three initial criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical roles) but dismissed the appeal, concluding the evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim placing him among the field's very top.

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Tattoo artist self-petitioner met three regulatory criteria but failed to achieve extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met published material, judging, and exhibition criteria but dismissed appeal because overall record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

Composer, music minister, and ethnomusicology educator claimed six criteria. AAO affirmed judging and scholarly articles but rejected published material on plain language grounds. Petitioner waived remaining claims. Falls short of sustained national or international acclaim threshold.