Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

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.

An educational planning and evaluation expert sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, holding that while the petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria, only two of required three criteria were satisfied, and the overall evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at elite level.

ESL instructor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met judging criterion only. Membership and leading role criteria rejected; published material and original contributions waived on appeal; high salary reserved. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, so final merits not analyzed.

An environmental science professor and researcher specializing in soil conservation and AI-powered monitoring systems sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) and failed to establish the required three; final merits determination also failed.

A philosophy researcher claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria; SCOPS found four met. AAO, in final merits determination, dismissed the appeal, concluding the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner is among the very top of the field despite meeting initial criteria.

Ethnomusicology researcher meets four initial criteria (publications, judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO held totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or small-percentage-at-top status: publication record typical for specialized field, media coverage lacks comparative context, and judging not shown to be prestigious.