Published AAO appeal decisions

A company petitioned for EB-1A classification for its co-founder and head of product in technology. The service center found two criteria met: leading role and high salary. The AAO affirmed denial because the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria; awards, membership, published material, and scholarship claims all fell short of regulatory standards.

A digital health communications influencer and public health educator sought EB-1A classification. The service center found two criteria met; the AAO on appeal reconsidered and found insufficient evidence for the high salary criterion, leaving petitioner below the three-criterion threshold.

A digital transformation architect satisfied three initial criteria but failed the final merits test. AAO found his Salesforce certification, recent judging, publications, and employment did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field required for extraordinary ability.

A mountaineer from Bangladesh sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, membership, publications, contributions, and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence and that club membership required outstanding achievements by recognized experts. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

Software development engineer in test claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing five criteria. AAO found he met judging and high salary criteria but abandoned other claims on appeal. Two criteria insufficient; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Technology company petitioned for CTO classified as extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. SCOPS found two criteria met; AAO found judging criterion also satisfied. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile status after establishing three evidentiary criteria.

A healthcare ethics and medical communication researcher in early-career stage seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met (awards) but withdrew SCOPS findings on membership and published materials; petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Final merits analysis not reached. Appeal dismissed.

General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

ESL instructor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met judging criterion only. Membership and leading role criteria rejected; published material and original contributions waived on appeal; high salary reserved. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, so final merits not analyzed.

Investment fund director with eleven years in private equity and banking claimed five criteria plus comparable evidence. AAO found published material and comparable evidence (display) criteria met, satisfying the three-criterion threshold. However, on final merits, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of his field, so appeal was dismissed.

A music video producer and director from Ukraine claims extraordinary ability. He satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria, falling short of the three-criterion minimum needed. AAO dismissed appeal, holding his awards lacked national or international recognition and association membership claim unsupported.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

Chief executive seeks extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, awards, and leading role criteria. AAO found awards not for field excellence, judging lacked corroboration, and critical role unestablished. Fewer than three criteria met; appeal dismissed.

Clinical director in implant dentistry petitioner claimed five criteria; service center found only one met. AAO found beneficiary also met judging and critical role criteria on de novo review. Case remanded for final merits determination assessing whether sustained acclaim and top-tier status demonstrated.

AI solutions architect claimed seven extraordinary ability criteria. AAO found petitioner met three required criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. The case was remanded to SCOPS for final merits determination on whether the totality of evidence establishes extraordinary ability.

A cybersecurity engineer claiming extraordinary ability in EB-1A satisfied four of seven claimed criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that while regulatory criteria were met, the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top in the field.

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.

Electrical engineer sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. Claimed awards, membership, published material, judging, contributions, and leading role. Service center found two criteria met; AAO found awards and membership not met and concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

First assistant surgeon self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed four criteria: association membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO found membership criterion not met and leading role criterion not met; original contributions and scholarly articles not analyzed. Appeal dismissed.

Professional squash player seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed seven criteria; AAO found at least three met (awards, published material, and prior comparable evidence finding). Matter remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and placement among top percentile.