Published AAO appeal decisions

A digital marketing and communications director claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Even meeting two criteria, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim among the small percentage at the top. Appeal dismissed.

Marketing professional met initial evidentiary criteria with four categories. However, AAO found evidence insufficient for final merits determination of sustained acclaim and placement among very top of field. Record lacked degree of recognition required by statute. Appeal dismissed.

A digital marketing specialist sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met; on appeal the petitioner claimed four more. The AAO found the threshold of three criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing.

Director of growth marketing claims five criteria; AAO found only published material met. Petitioner demonstrated one of three required initial criteria. Because threshold not satisfied, AAO declined final merits determination and dismissed appeal based on insufficient evidentiary foundation.

Marketing manager in digital commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed SCOPS denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Radio station and social media entrepreneur sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed eight criteria; service center found three met but concluded lack of sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding awards lacked significance and overall evidence insufficient for extraordinary ability standard.

Assistant professor of advertising seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria; met three (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed final merits step: evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required to place her among field's top tier.

A marketing director met three evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO affirmed SCOPS' reasoned consideration of evidence, including letters provided in response to notice of intent to deny. The petitioner made general unsupported assertions of error and provided no additional evidence that sustained national or international acclaim was established.

Journalist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria; established only two: judging and leading critical role. Awards insufficient documentation; no evidence of national recognition. High salary claim lacked comparable industry data. Failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

Sports journalist claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO found broadcast journalism evidence comparable to artistic exhibitions criterion. Leading role claim failed because award lacked national or international recognition. Only two criteria met; three required, so appeal dismissed without final merits determination.

A global brand and marketing communications director sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming nine criteria. The AAO found only the leading or critical role criterion satisfied, others unmet or waived, so the three-criterion threshold was not reached and the appeal was dismissed.

An automotive journalist claimed five EB-1A criteria beyond the leading role criterion the director found met. The AAO affirmed rejections of awards, published material, and judging criteria. With only one criterion met, petitioner failed the threshold and lacked sustained international acclaim.

Event producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met initial evidentiary criteria but AAO found evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or position among top event producers. Single media mention and isolated judging instance do not establish required level of achievement.

A producer and journalist from Venezuela seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed six criteria. The AAO affirmed the Director's finding that she met two (judging, artistic display) but rejected four others (awards, membership, published material, leading role) and concluded her work in local media did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for the top tier.

A video journalist sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming several evidentiary criteria. The AAO agreed that the awards and judging criteria were met but found membership, published material, exhibitions and leading role unmet. Overall, the evidence did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Public relations professional with nearly twenty years in media and senior international roles sought extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established three criteria at threshold and presented additional published materials evidence. AAO found petitioner demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and achieved career of acclaimed work in field, qualifying as among small percentage at top.

A journalist and sub-editor sought extraordinary ability classification, initially claiming all ten criteria. The director found only judging met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner satisfied only one criterion because awards, memberships, media coverage, articles and role were not adequately shown, and sustained acclaim was not demonstrated.

Marketing manager in OTT South Asian television sought EB-1A as individual of extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; director found only one met. AAO reversed director's leading role finding and found no other criteria satisfied. Narrowly defined field and insufficient evidence of national or international acclaim.

A journalist and brand manager claimed extraordinary ability based on seven criteria. The AAO found three criteria satisfied initially but concluded the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and was not among the top percentage in journalism, dismissing the appeal.

A journalist working for Russian radio and U.S.-based publications claimed three criteria. The AAO found published material and leading critical role met, but scholarly articles failed because audience was not learned professionals. With only two criteria met, the appeal was dismissed.

Advertising senior account executive petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed five criteria; two were met (judging and leading role). Appeal dismissed because membership and high salary criteria were not satisfied. Only two criteria met; three required. Record lacked evidence of top-level sustained acclaim.

A journalist claimed extraordinary ability through five criteria, meeting at least three via awards, publications, judging, and a leadership role. The AAO found the evidentiary criteria satisfied but dismissed the appeal because the totality of evidence, particularly the awards, demonstrated only local and regional recognition rather than the sustained national or international acclaim required.

A satellite television news producer sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming awards, published material, judging, scholarly articles, a leading role and contributions. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the awards, media coverage, judging and contribution evidence insufficient and the aggregate record short of the required expertise. The decision's treatment of the scholarly articles and leading role criteria is internally inconsistent.

A copywriter and creative supervisor sought O-1A classification; petitioner abandoned two criteria and failed to meet at least three of the remaining criteria. AAO affirmed dismissal, finding beneficiary did not qualify and comparable evidence was not applicable.