Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

An employer petitioned for a technology entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability (EB-1A). Claimed seven criteria initially; director found two met (judging, leading role). On appeal, petitioner claimed five others. AAO found awards and membership unmet and declined to analyze remaining criteria, reserving final merits because threshold initial evidence requirements not satisfied.

A tourism specialist and entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met fewer than three evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.

Entrepreneur who co-founded ventures in Georgia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three initial criteria after identifying leading or critical role role not credited by SCOPS. Decision remanded for final merits determination regarding sustained national or international acclaim.

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.

Entrepreneur claimed nine EB-1A criteria but met only two, short of three required. AAO withdrew contradictory SCOPS findings on awards and membership, rejected published material claim, but found petitioner met the threshold. Matter remanded for final merits determination on whether evidence shows sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

An entrepreneur in the digital exhibition field sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted that the initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, including membership, press coverage, judging, articles and a leading role, but denied at the final merits step. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not place her among the field's top percentage.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

CEO of beverage company manufacturing energy drinks claimed extraordinary ability status. AAO held petitioner satisfied only one of ten required evidentiary criteria (published materials) but failed to establish three minimum; insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim or recognition in field.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Entrepreneur seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification for ventures in car rental, used cars, travel, and e-commerce. Claimed four criteria but Director found none met. AAO affirmed, finding insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or critical organizational roles and no documentation of high remuneration.

A hospitality entrepreneur and bar professional sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The Director accepted two, judging and leading role. The AAO agreed on those two but found the awards criterion unmet and deemed scholarly articles waived. It concluded that three criteria were not satisfied and that sustained acclaim was not shown.

Entrepreneur and business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met only one of three required criteria (published material about him). AAO rejected awards, membership, judging, and leading role claims. No major recognized award. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet initial evidentiary threshold.

E-commerce gourmet meal delivery CEO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Employer-petitioner showed beneficiary met published materials and leading role criteria. AAO dismissed because only two criteria met and no major award, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim.

Technology entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability in business. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met (leading role, high salary) but rejected published material for translation deficiencies and original contributions for lack of major field impact. Appeal dismissed for insufficient criteria.

Co-founder of mini-grid electrical company sought EB-1A classification in business. Claimed multiple criteria including leading role, published material, and judging. AAO held three criteria met and final merits satisfied through evidence of speaking invitations, conference participation, and expert recognition.

An inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, media coverage, patents, and institutional roles. The AAO found awards and memberships met but rejected published material, original contributions lacking sustained national impact evidence, and leading role. Only two criteria satisfied; innovations lacked proven sustained national recognition despite company use. Appeal dismissed.