Published AAO appeal decisions

An AI researcher self-petitioning for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria and final merits assessment. AAO found only two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles), falling short of the required three. Record lacks evidence of major significance, widespread influence, or national acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability classification.

CEO/manager in business sought EB-1A classification claiming three criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. Director found only leading role established. AAO dismissed, holding high salary claim failed due to inadequate comparison data and insufficient differential from survey averages.

Retail manager seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed five criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. AAO held none met: training certificates not awards, model selection not judging, employer letters insufficiently document contributions or distinguished role, and salary evidence incomplete with timing defect.

A software developer specializing in 3D digital scanning since 1998, working as CTO for a major dental scanning company, sought EB-1A classification. The AAO found three criteria met and, reviewing the record holistically, determined the evidence established sustained national acclaim and top-tier status. Appeal sustained.

Telematics systems engineer and CEO of tracking technology company. Self-petitioner seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three of seven claimed criteria but failed final merits determination; lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.

Drilling engineering executive claiming extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held final merits not satisfied; accomplishments lack sustained national or international acclaim sufficient to establish top-tier status in field.

An oil industry professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed four criteria including awards, membership, original contributions, and leading role. The AAO dismissed, finding none met the standards; the honorary certificate and professional association membership lacked required recognition level, and employer contributions did not establish national acclaim.

Television and film producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met published material criterion but failed three remaining claimed criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner established only one criterion and lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Biochemist seeking EB-1A claimed extraordinary ability in sciences. AAO held petitioner met only two criteria and failed on original contributions because evidence lacked objective demonstration of major significance, reliable citation metrics, or proof of field-wide impact.

Management consulting firm petitioned for beneficiary's EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Beneficiary met three evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, critical role) but AAO found evidence totality did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

Information technology project manager in human-computer interactive digital technologies sought EB-1A. AAO held petitioner met three initial criteria but failed final merits determination because evidence lacked comparative data showing sustained acclaim and top-tier field standing.

Software company petitioned for senior director of professional services under EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten initial criteria. AAO upheld rejection of membership, published material, original contributions, and high salary criteria due to insufficient documentation of field-wide impact and recognition.

Investment firm petitions for O-1A classification for external managers evaluation specialist. Petitioner failed to submit required advisory opinion and satisfied only two of eight evidentiary criteria. Missing published material documentation and failing to establish three alternate criteria, petition dismissed.

An energy efficiency professional seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed five criteria: awards, published material, original contributions, leading role, judging, and scholarly articles. AAO found he failed to establish three qualifying criteria and lacks evidence of upper-echelon status.

Aquatic coach and instructor claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability in athletics. AAO affirmed denial, finding applicant failed to satisfy three required alternate criteria and lacks sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating extraordinary ability among the very top of field.

Stage construction and engineering professional sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for art, theatre, and film work. AAO held three criteria satisfied (published material, judging, leading roles) but record failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An actor with over two decades in film and television claimed seven evidentiary criteria and extraordinary ability. The director found three criteria met. The AAO dismissed the appeal, concluding the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement placing him among the very top in entertainment, despite being accomplished.

An assistant professor claimed extraordinary ability in academia. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she abandoned some claims and failed to overcome the director's determinations on awards, membership, publications, original contributions, and critical role.

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.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability in sciences. Director found two criteria met: judging and scholarly articles. AAO rejected awards claim because Chinese government awards lack established national recognition and rejected membership and leading role claims. Only two of three required criteria met.

Pomegranate industry business executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner failed to meet three of ten initial criteria; television appearances lacked sufficient documentation; evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.

Research scientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She claimed multiple criteria including scholarly articles and judging. AAO found she met only two of ten required criteria (scholarly articles and judging), falling short of three-criterion threshold. Final merits analysis confirmed insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.