Published AAO appeal decisions

Spanish voiceover actor for dubbing and localization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because service center failed to address three claimed criteria despite petitioner providing evidence in initial petition and response to RFE, denying fair opportunity to contest on appeal.

A hockey athlete and coach appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO withdrew SCOPS's decision that petitioner failed the judging criterion, finding evidence that she served as head referee. With three criteria met, the AAO remanded for SCOPS to conduct final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing.

A corporate attorney with thirty years of business law experience in U.S.-France trade sought EB-1A classification. The AAO remanded because the Service Center Director failed to fully analyze claimed evidentiary criteria and incorrectly rejected post-filing evidence, depriving the petitioner of complete consideration.

Architect and urban designer claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO found three qualifying criteria met (judging, scholarly articles, high salary) and remanded for final merits analysis of whether petitioner demonstrates sustained acclaim among top of field.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

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 watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

Technical program manager in data storage sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role), overcoming denial basis. Matter remanded for director to conduct final merits determination assessing sustained acclaim.

A competitive swimmer sought EB-1A classification. The director found two criteria met; the AAO added a third by recognizing team captain role within a division as qualifying. With three criteria satisfied, the matter was remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim and top-tier status.

Theatrical producer seeking EB-1A classification. Met four of ten initial criteria (published material, display, leading role, commercial success) but failed final merits analysis. Director's decision lacked thorough evaluation of all evidence and did not adequately explain why achievements failed to demonstrate small percentage at field top. Remanded for complete final merits analysis.

Senior life science product consultant claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. Director found two met. AAO found three criteria satisfied and withdrew denial, requiring final merits review to assess sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Chief technology officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because director misclassified petitioner's field of endeavor; petitioner asserted multidisciplinary expertise but director evaluated narrow specialty only, requiring RFE for field clarification before criteria assessment.

A home appliance manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification for a beneficiary. The AAO found the Director's decision conclusory and insufficiently analyzed claimed criteria, particularly published materials and original contributions, and remanded for full examination of evidence including expert letters.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director denied; AAO found director failed to evaluate petitioner's claimed scholarly articles criterion. AAO remanded for director to address this criterion and if satisfied conduct final merits analysis.

Retail business consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Director dismissed motion improperly. AAO held Director failed to analyze new evidence of original contributions and did not conduct required two-part review, remanding for reconsideration with full analysis of claimed criteria and final merits determination.