Published AAO appeal decisions

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

A software developer specializing in 3D digital scanning since 1998, working as CTO for a major dental scanning company, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found three criteria met and, reviewing the record holistically, determined the evidence established sustained national acclaim and top-tier status. Appeal sustained.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Information technology project manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies sought EB-1A. AAO held petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits determination because evidence lacked comparative data showing sustained acclaim and top-tier field standing.

Software company petitioned for senior director of professional services under EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten initial criteria. AAO upheld rejection of membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria due to insufficient documentation of field-wide impact and recognition.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

CEO in artificial intelligence and telecommunications seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed three criteria; AAO found two additional criteria met beyond Director's initial finding. Remanded for final merits determination on sustained national or international acclaim.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.