Published AAO appeal decisions

An investment banker claimed extraordinary ability in his field. He met four regulatory criteria but failed on high salary and overall final merits. The AAO upheld dismissal, finding he is on a trajectory to reach the top but is currently a mid-career associate without demonstrated seniority, major deal leadership, or industry-wide reputation required for extraordinary ability.

A financial portfolio strategist in Canada claimed six EB-1A criteria but met only three per USCIS. On appeal, the AAO found the membership and published material criteria unmet and concluded the totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-tier status in finance.

A finance controller and startup CEO with an O-1 visa claimed EB-1A status. AAO found he failed to establish three criteria: membership in qualifying associations, high salary compared to field peers, and therefore fell below the threshold, dismissing the petition without reaching final merits.

Vice president and information lead architect in financial services seeks EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability in data compliance, governance, and risk management. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met minimum evidentiary criteria but failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier status in the field.

A financial consultant sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found two criteria met, and on appeal she claimed three more. The AAO withdrew the published material finding and found only one criterion met, so the three-criterion threshold failed and the final merits were not reached.

Business professional in risk management sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner met three evidentiary criteria but AAO's final merits analysis found evidence of expertise and some recognition insufficient to demonstrate sustained national acclaim or small-percentage top-of-field achievement.

Managing director in financial services risk management seeks EB-1A classification. Six of seven claimed initial criteria met but appeal dismissed in final merits analysis. Record shows noteworthy accomplishments but insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at very top of field.

A specialist in prevention and investigation of financial crimes and money laundering sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner failed to establish any of the claimed eight initial criteria and could not meet the three-criterion threshold; final merits determination also failed.

Financial risk specialist sought EB-1A classification. Service center found judging and original contributions met; AAO withdrew both findings, concluding judging students does not meet regulatory requirements and contributions lacked evidence of significant impact. Petitioner failed to meet three criteria threshold.

An economist in financial inclusion and innovation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

A wealth management strategist and financial consultant claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A. She met at least three criteria initially, but the AAO withdrew those determinations and found she failed to establish sustained acclaim or position among the elite in her field, dismissing the appeal.

Financial advisor self-petitioner appealed EB-1A denial. AAO found petitioner satisfied none of ten initial evidentiary criteria, rejecting claims of awards, memberships, publications, and judging experience. Appeal dismissed as petitioner failed to meet the threshold evidence requirement needed for final merits determination.

A financial manager sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: membership, original contributions, and a leading or critical role. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the membership criterion was not satisfied, so the three-criteria threshold could not be met. The other claimed criteria and the final merits were not decided.

A venture capital investment manager sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed four criteria but met only the high-salary criterion. The AAO affirmed the denial because he satisfied only two criteria, falling short of the three required before final merits analysis, and dismissed the appeal.

An economist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: association membership, published material, and judging. However, on final merits determination, the record lacked evidence of published scholarly articles, government implementation of research, or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Financial manager with eight years finance and four years management experience in Kazakhstan sought extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met (from SCOPS). Rejected awards, membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient criteria satisfaction.

Co-founder and CEO of financial technology company claiming extraordinary ability through lesser awards, memberships, published materials, and leadership role. AAO found awards criterion not met because award belonged to employer; membership criterion not met because petitioner failed to demonstrate it applies; and overall record lacks evidence of sustained acclaim among the very top of the field.

Financial advisor and consultant claiming extraordinary ability. Met three EB-1A criteria per Director, but AAO withdrew two determinations and affirmed denial on final merits analysis. Totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Investment banker self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed Service Center denial, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: association membership, leading role, and published material were unsupported or waived on appeal.

A chief financial officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claimed five criteria. The AAO found she satisfied only the leading critical role criterion but failed to meet membership, published material, and high salary criteria. Without three criteria met, final merits determination was not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Financial technology company petitions for beneficiary in fintech as extraordinary ability immigrant. Claimed six criteria; director found two met. AAO finds three criteria satisfied: judging, leading role, and scholarly articles via comparable evidence of trade show presentations. Matter remanded for final merits analysis on sustained acclaim.

Reinsurance executive petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed eight criteria but established only one (leading or critical role). AAO affirmed petitioner failed to meet membership and high salary criteria, did not reach original contributions, and concluded record lacked evidence of sustained acclaim or top-tier standing required.

Entrepreneur with twenty years accounting and finance experience in pharmaceutical industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability in business. AAO held only two of ten criteria met; three-criterion threshold not satisfied; no major award or exceptional recognition; appeal dismissed.

Financial specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria (leading role) and failed to establish three required criteria. Evidence lacked specificity about major significance of contributions and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

A software developer and financial analyst sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding petitioner met only one of six claimed criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required at top of field.