Published AAO appeal decisions

IT educator and consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner submitted certificates, CompTIA membership, articles, recommendation letters, and commercial success evidence. AAO found none met regulatory criteria; evidence demonstrated commendable local contributions but no sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

A self-petitioner assistant research professor in electrical or computer engineering claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found minimal evidence of peer review meeting one criterion but concluded the overall record did not demonstrate the petitioner distinguished himself to qualify as extraordinary ability.

IT educator and consultant who established a training school and non-profit organization in New York claimed extraordinary ability through awards, membership, publications, and critical role. The AAO found none of the ten criteria met because evidence was either absent, routine to the occupation, or lacked independent documentation of national or international recognition.

Computer scientist sought extraordinary ability classification in intrusion detection systems. Petitioner claimed awards, membership, patents, scholarly articles, and leadership role. AAO found no major prize, no outstanding-achievement membership, and insufficient documentation of major contributions or sustained acclaim beyond affiliated institutions to meet at least three criteria.

Scientist claimed EB-1A status as computational scientist based on patents, encyclopedia entries, and peer review work. AAO dismissed, finding awards academic only, memberships non-exclusive, self-published coverage inadequate, and contributions lacking major significance to demonstrate sustained national acclaim.

Computer science assistant professor sought extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met only the judging criterion through peer review; insufficient to satisfy three-criterion requirement. Evidence showed talent but not sustained national or international acclaim.

Optical engineer claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, judging, and original contributions. AAO found judging criterion met but other criteria not satisfied. Evidence showed significant contributions but lacked demonstration of sustained acclaim placing petitioner at very top of field.