Published AAO appeal decisions

Financial analyst seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met one of ten evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate intent to continue work in the United States. AAO affirmed denial based on unchallenged intent requirement and found petitioner submitted willfully altered translations of evidence.

Reinsurance executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria but established only one (leading or critical role). AAO affirmed petitioner failed to meet membership and high salary criteria, did not reach original contributions, and concluded record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier standing required.

Senior director in business/economics seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO sustained appeal, finding petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, high salary) and demonstrated sustained acclaim at the very top of field through extensive documentation.

Entrepreneur with twenty years accounting and finance experience in pharmaceutical industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. AAO held only two of ten criteria met; three-criterion threshold not satisfied; no major award or exceptional recognition; appeal dismissed.

Financial specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (leading role) and failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity about major significance of contributions and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A software developer and financial analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only one of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required at top of field.

Tax accountant seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three criteria on initial evidence; however, final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field top, warranting dismissal.

A finance business partner claimed four additional criteria beyond two already met by the service center. The AAO agreed she met judging and critical role criteria but rejected membership claims. With only two criteria met instead of three required, the petition failed. Appeal dismissed.

An oil and gas investment portfolio director claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. The AAO found three criteria met: scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, at final merits the decision held the publication record was too recent and lacked citation evidence of sustained acclaim to establish extraordinary ability.

Executive accountant and founder claimed extraordinary ability through judging, publications, and critical role. AAO agreed three criteria met, triggering final merits analysis. However, found sporadic publication record and limited auditing history insufficient to demonstrate sustained acclaim and top tier standing in accounting field.

A quantitative analyst and vice president at a financial firm sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only leading role and high salary criteria, but failed on scholarly articles lacking major publication venues and original contributions lacking field-wide impact.

Software development executive in financial technology claimed extraordinary ability via membership, original contributions, critical role, and salary. AAO found only critical role criterion met, disagreed with director on salary, rejected membership and contributions as insufficient. Dismissed for failing three-criterion threshold.

An options market consultant and educator self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found the petitioner met none of the analyzed regulatory criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the top of the field. Appeal dismissed.

Counsel-represented economist formerly employed by Canadian Department of Finance claims extraordinary ability through awards, publications, critical role, and salary. AAO found witness letters insufficient primary evidence, publications not in major media, role subordinate, and salary unexceptional. Overall evidence failed to demonstrate top-tier status.

Senior quantitative analyst in economics claiming extraordinary ability through scholarly articles and professional role. AAO held one criterion met but overall failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim. Evidence shows talent but not top-tier distinction required; peer review routine and salary comparison lacking.

A financial investment advisor self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability in business. The AAO found only one criterion met and dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of the field.

Senior quantitative analyst for financial institution claimed extraordinary ability in business. Met original contributions criterion through cutting-edge forecasting work but failed membership, judging, critical role, and high salary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal; only one criterion met when three required.