Published AAO appeal decisions

Multimedia designer self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability based on five criteria. AAO found only judging and exhibitions criteria met; published materials not in major media, and leading roles not substantiated by organizational charts or documentation. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to establish three criteria and sustained national or international acclaim.

A law firm petitioned for a beneficiary in an advisory role claiming extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that the beneficiary met only judging and scholarly articles criteria. The decision rejected original contributions as major significance and leading role claims. The beneficiary lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Motion picture production designer and art director sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding only two of seven claimed criteria satisfied, progression from student work to assistant positions insufficient, and no sustained national or international acclaim establishing she is among small percentage at very top of field.

A firearms company sought extraordinary ability classification for its chief financial officer with prior international banking experience. AAO dismissed the appeal, finding beneficiary met only two of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier status.

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.

An animal health and welfare specialist with veterinary and master's degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria (scholarly articles, leading role, judging). AAO found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required; work demonstrated regional expertise only.

Self-petitioner fashion designer and CEO seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed to meet five evidentiary criteria. The AAO sustained, finding petitioner satisfied four criteria and demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim with recognition from major media and fashion industry professionals despite brief career tenure.

Sports medicine physician employed by medical center. Met three initial evidentiary criteria: judging, leading critical role, and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed on final merits, finding evidence insufficient to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among very top of field.

Human rights educator and professor seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles. Final merits analysis found insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim, citation impact, or placement among the very small percentage at the very top of the field, resulting in dismissal.

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.

Systems analyst specializing in ERP and business intelligence sought EB-1A through attorney petitioner. Claimed four criteria; AAO found two met but insufficient for extraordinary ability. Record lacks evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Civil engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria: lesser awards, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found only scholarly articles met; awards were to projects not petitioner, and leading role organizations lacked distinguished reputation. Appeal dismissed.

A physician self-petitioner claimed eight EB-1A criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lacked major significance; leading/critical role failed to show distinction. On final merits, the AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim; upward career trajectory insufficient for top-tier status.

A dancer and choreographer who co-founded a dance company self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. She met judging and exhibitions criteria but failed on published material and leading role criteria. The AAO dismissed, finding her regional career insufficient for sustained national acclaim at top field level.

Religious faith writer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, publications, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of three required criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim at the very top of the field.

A software engineer and former startup founder sought extraordinary ability classification on his own behalf, claiming six criteria. The AAO found the leading role and high salary criteria met but rejected awards, published material and original contributions. The evidence did not show sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was dismissed.

Attorney petitioner for management analyst beneficiary claimed four criteria; Director found two met. AAO affirmed only two met and rejected original contributions and leading critical role findings; appeal dismissed as threshold three criteria not satisfied.

An artist blacksmith sought extraordinary ability classification. Although the petitioner demonstrated three evidentiary criteria met, the AAO affirmed dismissal because the evidence does not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field.

A software engineer at a self-driving vehicle company sought EB-1A classification. The petitioner claimed original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only two criteria met (contributions and salary); the leading role claim failed because project leadership does not equal organizational leadership. The appeal was dismissed.

A chemist working for a pharmaceutical company claimed four criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the director's finding on judging and scholarly articles but rejected original contributions, finding employer statements about trade secrets and potential drug discoveries lacked evidence of major field impact.

A neuroscientist appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO found three criteria met: published materials, scholarly articles, and leading critical roles. However, the final merits determination failed; peer review participation and publication venues alone did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier status required for extraordinary ability.

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.

Entrepreneur and founder of luxury automobile club in China claiming extraordinary ability in business. Claimed three criteria on appeal: judging, original contributions, and others already met. AAO dismissed, finding only two criteria met, below the three required, and no sustained international acclaim or top percentile achievement.

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.

Film and television director seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, published material, original contributions, critical role, and artistic display. AAO rejected awards and published material as lacking substantiation. Critical role claim failed for insufficient evidence of organizational distinction. Appeal dismissed for failure to meet three required initial criteria.