Published AAO appeal decisions

A businessman with business degrees and twenty years international experience sought EB-1A classification. He claimed seven criteria and met three: awards, judging, and leading role. The AAO affirmed these three but dismissed the appeal because he lacked sustained acclaim in the United States after 2021, falling short of extraordinary ability.

CEO/manager in business sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. Director found only leading role established. AAO dismissed, holding high salary claim failed due to inadequate comparison data and insufficient differential from survey averages.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

Artist manager who is founder and CEO of an organization seeks EB-1A classification. He claimed to meet three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found he met published material and leading role criteria but not high salary. Because he did not meet the initial requirement of three criteria, final merits analysis showed he lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An operations manager at an e-commerce company claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. The service center accepted judging and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the award not shown to be nationally recognized, membership abandoned, and the articles not in major media, leaving only two criteria and no final merits review.

A self-described life coach and motivational leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed, finding he failed to satisfy three required evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the highest echelon.

Self-petitioner protective security provider sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one criterion (high salary) but needed three; remaining claimed criteria failed. Record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO found published material and leading role criteria met but original contributions lacked field-wide impact and salary evidence was unreliable. Appeal dismissed for failing minimum three-criterion threshold.

A big data center consultant sought extraordinary ability classification in business. He met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated sustained national recognition as an expert, including leadership of technology standards groups. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Business sustainability specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met. Petitioner claimed five additional criteria on appeal. AAO affirmed only two criteria satisfied, finding no major, nationally recognized award and insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability or top-tier status.

Chief executive in small business development seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to meet three criteria required for EB-1A eligibility and did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition.

A gender, diversity, and inclusion specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met the initial evidence threshold but failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. She performed critical roles for organizations but lacked evidence of major contributions to the broader field or recognition as among the very top in her field.

Plant accountant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification in business. AAO found petitioner met only judging criterion but lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed; petitioner did not qualify for highly restrictive visa classification intended for individuals at top of field.

Senior project manager in business management claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner met judging and high salary criteria but failed awards, membership, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two of the required three alternate criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Self-petitioner, business supply chain software specialist, sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material). AAO rejected membership in professional associations and leading role claims due to insufficient evidence and timing issues. Appeal dismissed.

Chief executive officer and solutions architect claimed four criteria including membership, published material, leading role, and high salary. AAO found none met. YPO membership lacked demonstrated outstanding achievement standard. Published materials insufficient in prominence or attribution. Executive experience alone does not establish upper echelon status required.

An oil and gas industry executive sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found the initial criteria met but denied on final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding additional criteria satisfied and concluding that the whole record showed sustained acclaim and top-of-field standing, which the director had overlooked.

Entrepreneur and financier in business sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed at least three evidentiary criteria including awards and leadership role. AAO found awards lacked recognition as nationally or internationally prestigious for excellence in business and concluded petitioner lacks sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Media production agency petitioned for O-1A classification for senior vice president of production finance. AAO dismissed motions, finding only one criterion met and insufficient documentation of membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts.

A digital product and business manager in mobile communications claimed three criteria but could not substantiate high remuneration with proper comparative salary data for UK positions and long-term compensation. AAO dismissed, finding the incomplete survey data inadequate and declining to reach other claimed criteria or prospective benefit analysis.

Business operations specialist claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria initially: leading role and high salary. On appeal, claimed published material criterion but AAO found translations inaccurate and uncertified. AAO dismissed, finding insufficient evidence of acclaim or top-tier status despite meeting two criteria.