Published AAO appeal decisions

Chief executive officer and entrepreneur filed second motion to reopen EB-1A extraordinary ability petition. AAO dismissed motions because applicant neither provided documentary evidence of new facts nor demonstrated legal error in prior decision; applicant merely reargued issues already decided.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

An electric vehicle automotive business strategist with eighteen years' experience in Venezuela and Colombia self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met four evidentiary criteria but AAO upheld denial, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or placement among small percentage at field's very top.

A management and operations specialist with engineering background sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three of the ten required evidentiary criteria, and withdrew SCOPS findings on judging and high salary as unsupported.

Financial technologist and CEO of self-owned fintech firm from Dominican Republic seeking EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria; the AAO found membership and high salary unmet and deemed published material and scholarly articles waived. Without three criteria met, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching overall extraordinary ability.

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.

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.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

Business consultant and executive self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reopen because evidence was either available during original RFE or postdated the petition filing, violating the requirement to establish eligibility at time of petition.

A business consultant mentoring immigrant entrepreneurs claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found he did not meet the threshold of three evidentiary criteria and, alternatively, that he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top of his field.

A real estate broker seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claimed membership and high salary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because she did not receive a major award, did not meet three alternative criteria, and did not establish sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.

A business executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability status based on nine claimed criteria, including awards, membership, and high salary. The AAO found no major award and rejected lesser prizes and membership as nationally or internationally recognized. High salary finding was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation. The petitioner did not meet the initial three-criterion threshold and lacks sustained national or international acclaim.

A Canadian business manager and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met zero evidentiary criteria required for extraordinary ability and lacked sustained national or international acclaim as required by statute.

Administrative services and facilities manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed because petitioner failed to meet the minimum three of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards and membership criteria were not met; artistic exhibition criterion inapplicable to administrative work; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.

A logistician sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding the petitioner failed to document individual association membership and lacked evidence of judging others' work in logistics. Meeting only two of ten required criteria precluded reaching final merits analysis.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS required evidence of intent to continue work in the field and national benefit; the petitioner did not respond to these concerns on appeal. The AAO dismissed based on waiver of the two dispositive statutory requirements.

Information technology project manager claimed extraordinary ability in business. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner failed to meet three of ten criteria and showed no major award; lacks sustained acclaim or recognition consistent with top of field.

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.

A general and operations manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming six criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only the leading or critical role criterion but failed awards, membership, judging, and high salary criteria. The decision dismissed the appeal, finding no sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier field status.

A consultant and business analyst, who first sought a national interest waiver, claimed three extraordinary ability criteria: membership, original contributions and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the membership claim rested on training certifications, not qualifying association membership, making three criteria impossible. It reserved the other two criteria.

A human resources professional in Brazil sought EB-1A classification. She claimed five criteria: membership, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only judging was met and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Management analyst petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that none met: award too limited in scope, membership was mere registration, contributions not of major significance, roles only supportive not critical. Zero of three required criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed without final merits review.