Published AAO appeal decisions

International trade specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria and service center found two met. On appeal, petitioner contended three additional criteria were satisfied. AAO affirmed service center's findings, concluding petitioner met only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), below the three-criterion threshold, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

Physical therapist and entrepreneur seeking to operate mobile therapy clinic claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Asserted three criteria: membership, leading role, and high salary. AAO analyzed only leading role and found insufficient evidence of role in distinguished organization. Did not analyze other criteria as petitioner could not meet three-criterion threshold.

An animation director seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Membership in claimed organizations lacked judgment by recognized experts, and leading/critical role in project-based work did not qualify, dismissing the appeal.

A research teaching specialist in cell biology claimed four EB-1A criteria: original contributions, judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The AAO affirmed that original contributions and leading role were not met. With only two criteria established, the threshold of three was not satisfied. Final merits determination was not reached.

A business development coach from Colombia claimed extraordinary ability in social innovation and sustainable business. The AAO found he met only two of ten evidentiary criteria and did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, so dismissed without reaching the final sustained acclaim analysis.

Postdoctoral physicist self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. AAO found evidence insufficient to show sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at very top of field despite fellowships, publications, and work at distinguished institutions.

A computer scientist and AI company co-founder/CTO sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. He met three initial criteria (published material, judging, scholarly articles). However, final merits analysis found his achievements did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in his field. Appeal dismissed.

Surveyor seeking EB-1A for extraordinary ability in geodetic and survey networks. Met judging and scholarly articles criteria. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that original contributions and leading critical roles criteria unmet. With only two criteria satisfied, threshold not reached; final merits determination declined.

A software engineer claimed extraordinary ability under six criteria. The AAO found the petitioner met judging and leading critical role criteria but not high salary, published material, or original contributions. The final merits analysis concluded the evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

A teacher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification (EB-1A). She claimed seven criteria including membership, judging, original contributions, authorship, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found none met: membership did not require outstanding achievements, original contributions lacked significance, article was not in major publication, and role was not critical at a distinguished organization.

A parachuting athlete claimed extraordinary ability based on professional recognition over 15 years. The AAO confirmed he met three evidentiary criteria but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim consistent with the top percentage of his field.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Chinese architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but established none. AAO affirmed denial, finding record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for classification.

A director of product compliance at a school bus manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only a high salary criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found memberships, published material, contributions and scholarly articles unmet, leaving fewer than three criteria, and dismissed the appeal.

Performing artist petitioner claimed five evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found two criteria met but provided conclusory analysis on three others without adequate discussion of specific evidence. AAO remanded for proper reevaluation of all claimed criteria and, if three are satisfied, a final merits determination.

A tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Brazilian lawyer with bar membership and limited publications sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria; record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Financial advisor self-petitioner appealed EB-1A denial. AAO found petitioner satisfied none of ten initial evidentiary criteria, rejecting claims of awards, memberships, publications, and judging experience. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidence requirement needed for final merits determination.

Chief Technology Officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in science, technology, and education claimed seven criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet three required criteria: awards not related to proposed endeavor, published material insufficient, and original contributions not of major significance.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

Director of English for Academic Purposes Program claims extraordinary ability through judging and scholarly articles, and leading role at university. AAO affirmed that judging and articles met criteria but rejected leading role claim because the university's distinguished reputation was insufficiently demonstrated. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; appeal dismissed.

A beamline scientist at a Department of Energy facility claimed extraordinary ability under seven criteria. The AAO found three initial criteria met but concluded the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, therefore dismissing the appeal.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.