Published AAO appeal decisions

Artificial intelligence graduate researcher failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO found competition awards not nationally recognized; ChatGPT-sourced supporting documents deemed unreliable. With only two criteria potentially met, final merits analysis reserved as unnecessary.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

Software development company petitioning for CEO beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. USCIS approved three criteria; AAO withdrew original contributions finding, leaving only two criteria met. Final merits determination failed to show top-tier standing, dismissing appeal.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

Technology startup founder seeking EB-1A classification claimed eight evidentiary criteria; SCOPS found six met and AAO confirmed leading role criterion. However, AAO rejected the petition because sustained national or international acclaim was not demonstrated, with nearly all achievements from 2024-2025 and recognition limited to startup ecosystems, failing final merits review.

Software test automation engineer met all seven claimed initial criteria. However, AAO affirmed denial at final merits stage, finding evidence concentrated in 2024-2025 lacks sustained national or international acclaim. Work influence confined within company; does not demonstrate top-tier field standing.

Computer systems analyst claims extraordinary ability in sciences. Met at least three initial evidentiary criteria including leading role, membership, and salary. AAO found evidence lacks sustained acclaim over long period and achievements not recognized in field through extensive documentation. Appeal dismissed.

An AI investment bank petitioned for its founder, a technology entrepreneur, claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. The beneficiary claimed seven criteria. The AAO found venture capital funding is not an award for excellence and Forbes Technology Council membership does not require outstanding achievement judged by experts, dismissing the appeal.

Software engineering manager in cloud computing and AI-driven platforms sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal because although the petitioner met three initial criteria, the totality of evidence did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field.

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 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.

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.

Founder and CEO of an AI platform company sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven evidentiary criteria and sustained acclaim. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that only judging criterion was met. Venture capital funding, fellowship participation, and other claims failed because they lacked necessary recognition or expert evaluation. Appeal dismissed.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

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.

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.

An IT specialist in cloud computing and cybersecurity sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed seven criteria; the Service Center found four met. On appeal, the AAO rejected awards and memberships as unmet and concluded the petitioner failed to satisfy the three-criterion threshold, so final merits was not addressed. Appeal dismissed.

Information security associate vice president claimed seven criteria and satisfied three: judging, leading role, and high salary. AAO held initial evidence requirements met but final merits analysis showed insufficient evidence of sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

Information security analyst IV with PhD sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found beneficiary satisfied judging and authorship criteria but withdrew service center findings on leading role and high salary; did not meet threshold of three criteria; final merits determination not reached.

Digital marketing and computer vision entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed five evidentiary criteria but met only one regarding published articles. AAO withdrew SCOPS salary finding and affirmed that petitioner failed three-criterion threshold for immigrant visa eligibility.

Cybersecurity engineer employed as head of detection engineering sought EB-1A classification. Met initial three criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading role, and high salary. However, final merits analysis found insufficient sustained national or international acclaim to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top percentage level.

Chief technology officer at healthcare AI company. Claimed five additional criteria beyond two met by service center. AAO found venture capital funding not a recognized prize or award, membership claim unsubstantiated, and published materials not substantially about beneficiary. Beneficiary failed three-criterion threshold; appeal dismissed.