Published AAO appeal decisions

Martial artist from Uzbekistan seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met four initial criteria but dismissed on final merits. Documented achievements only through 2018; gap of years without evidence of sustained national or international acclaim through filing date.

A chief executive officer and entrepreneur seeks EB-1A classification claiming published material, awards, and membership criteria. The AAO withdrew the service center's favorable finding on published material, rejected awards and membership claims for insufficient evidence, and found the petitioner failed to meet the threshold of three qualifying criteria.

Technology company petitioning for cofounder and CEO claiming extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. Required three of eight criteria; met only one. AAO held venture funding, Forbes membership, and website articles insufficient under O-1A requirements.

Professional soccer player seeking EB-1A as intending soccer coach. AAO dismissed appeal, finding only two of six claimed criteria met. Petitioner lacked coaching evidence and sustained acclaim in new field; transition from athlete to coach does not satisfy extraordinary ability standard for small percentage at field's top.

A civil engineer self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability claiming five criteria. The AAO affirmed that only two criteria were met and dismissed because petitioner failed to demonstrate the extraordinary ability standard requiring sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field.

Journalist and media manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria: no major award, membership evidence inadequate, and judging experience not equivalent to policy standard. Appeal dismissed, SCOPS denial affirmed.

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 High salary finding was withdrawn due to insufficient documentation.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 health management specialist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found she met one criterion regarding scholarly articles but failed the membership criterion and reserved the leading role criterion. Because she did not establish three criteria, the final merits step was not performed, and the appeal was dismissed.

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.

AI technology company petitioned for O-1A classification of chief technology officer. Beneficiary met only one criterion (judging); awards, membership, and published material criteria were not satisfied. Appeal dismissed because beneficiary could not meet minimum three criteria requirement for extraordinary ability.

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 chemical engineer in nondestructive testing sought EB-1A classification. On motion to reconsider, he disputed the dismissal of his appeal without presenting new evidence or facts. The AAO found he failed to establish three required criteria and upheld the dismissal.

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.

Spanish voiceover actor for dubbing and localization sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO remanded because service center failed to address three claimed criteria despite petitioner providing evidence in initial petition and response to RFE, denying fair opportunity to contest on appeal.

Technology entrepreneur in hospitality industry sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed nine evidentiary criteria but failed to meet minimum three. AAO dismissed, finding venture capital funding inadequately documented and membership criterion not properly established; other criteria not analyzed as threshold requirement not met.

A karate coach claimed extraordinary ability and sought to open karate schools in the United States. The AAO confirmed he met two criteria—judging and leading role—but dismissed because he failed to meet the minimum three-criterion threshold required for final merits consideration.

A hockey athlete and coach appealed denial of EB-1A petition. The AAO withdrew SCOPS's decision that petitioner failed the judging criterion, finding evidence that she served as head referee. With three criteria met, the AAO remanded for SCOPS to conduct final merits analysis of sustained acclaim and top percentage standing.

Dentist and prosthodontist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found three evidentiary criteria met but no sustained national or international acclaim. AAO affirmed, finding memberships and judging experience insufficient to show career of acclaimed work or placement among the very top of the field.

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.