Published AAO appeal decisions

An international program director and public policy analyst sought EB-1A classification, claiming nine evidentiary criteria. The service center accepted one; the AAO accepted a second, scholarly articles, but rejected the rest it analyzed and found no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing, so the appeal was 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.

An AI consulting firm sought EB-1A classification for a chief technology officer. The AAO found the beneficiary met the judging criterion on appeal, satisfying three total criteria. The matter was remanded for a final merits determination on whether the beneficiary demonstrates sustained acclaim and placement at the very top of the field.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.

An English as second language teacher sought extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held she met fewer than three evidentiary criteria; her teaching materials and peer respect were insufficient to show sustained national or international acclaim or recognition among the very top of her field. Appeal dismissed.

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.

A journalist from Kazakhstan with roles as poet, writer, and performer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding she did not establish three of ten criteria: no major award, membership organizations lack required standards, and blog posts do not constitute scholarly articles. Threshold not met; final merits not reached.

Retired professional padel player ranked number one for 13 years sought extraordinary ability classification as coach. AAO determined only two of seven claimed criteria were met. Initial evidence threshold of three criteria not satisfied; final merits determination reserved. Appeal dismissed.

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.

Equestrian trainer and coach self-petitioner could not use athlete achievements as prior acclaim had ended. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner met fewer than three initial evidentiary criteria and did not reach final merits.

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The service center found one criterion met (exhibitions) but not three required. On appeal, the petitioner claimed awards, membership, published material, and leading role. The AAO rejected the awards claim, finding nominations insufficient and team awards lacking individual recognition. Only one criterion satisfied; threshold unmet; appeal dismissed.

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.

A mountaineer from Bangladesh sought EB-1A classification claiming awards, membership, publications, contributions, and leading role. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence and that club membership required outstanding achievements by recognized experts. The petitioner did not demonstrate sustained acclaim at the top of the field.

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.

A healthcare ethics and medical communication researcher in early-career stage seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

An employer petitioned on behalf of a top executive for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO withdrew the service center's previous findings on two criteria: membership and high salary. With fewer than three criteria met, the threshold initial evidence requirement failed. The AAO declined to reach final merits. Appeal dismissed.

A poet sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but successfully established only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that lesser awards lacked national or international recognition, membership associations did not require outstanding achievements, and overall evidence showed only isolated accomplishments, not sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

A business executive claimed extraordinary ability through seven regulatory criteria, including awards and scholarly articles. The AAO found he did not receive a major internationally recognized award and met fewer than three alternate criteria. The appeal was dismissed because initial evidentiary requirements were not satisfied.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met (awards) but withdrew SCOPS findings on membership and published materials; petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Final merits analysis not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only one of ten criteria required as initial evidence and failed to establish national or international recognition of awards or qualifications.