Published AAO appeal decisions

A data scientist with a master's degree in software engineering claimed six evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed the service center's finding that she met only two criteria, judging and scholarly articles. She failed to establish that IEEE senior membership requires outstanding achievements or that her original contributions were of major significance. Without three satisfied criteria, the petition was dismissed without final merits review.

Physical therapist and entrepreneur seeking to operate mobile therapy clinic claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Asserted three criteria: membership, leading role, and high salary. AAO analyzed only leading role and found insufficient evidence of role in distinguished organization. Did not analyze other criteria as petitioner could not meet three-criterion threshold.

An animation director seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria. Membership in claimed organizations lacked judgment by recognized experts, and leading/critical role in project-based work did not qualify, dismissing the appeal.

Ukrainian soccer coach claimed extraordinary ability and met three initial evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed that the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among the very top in the field despite media coverage and training method adoption.

A business development coach from Colombia claimed extraordinary ability in social innovation and sustainable business. The AAO found he met only two of ten evidentiary criteria and did not satisfy the threshold requirement of three criteria, so dismissed without reaching the final sustained acclaim analysis.

Pilot petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO found membership criterion not met because fellowship selection was not judged by recognized experts. High salary claim failed because compensation matched standard rates for comparable service. Petitioner met fewer than three required criteria, so appeal dismissed without final merits review.

A biomedical textiles and materials engineer seeks extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten initial evidence criteria regarding salary and commercial success but failed membership and original contributions prongs. Decision held that meeting only two criteria does not satisfy the threshold initial evidence requirement; final merits analysis was reserved.

An editor with a doctoral degree in editing and publishing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. The AAO found no major award and rejected membership, published material, and other criteria as not meeting regulatory standards, dismissing the appeal because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

A teacher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification (EB-1A). She claimed seven criteria including membership, judging, original contributions, authorship, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found none met: membership did not require outstanding achievements, original contributions lacked significance, article was not in major publication, and role was not critical at a distinguished organization.

A parachuting athlete claimed extraordinary ability based on professional recognition over 15 years. The AAO confirmed he met three evidentiary criteria but dismissed the appeal because the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim consistent with the top percentage of his field.

Animal science postdoctoral researcher claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. Service center found only scholarly articles criterion met. AAO affirmed that petitioner satisfied only one criterion, not the required three, and dismissed appeal. Work lacks sustained national or international acclaim at top of field.

Chinese architect sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed four criteria but established none. AAO affirmed denial, finding record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or recognition required for classification.

A director of product compliance at a school bus manufacturer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center found only a high salary criterion met, and he claimed five more on appeal. The AAO found memberships, published material, contributions and scholarly articles unmet, leaving fewer than three criteria, and dismissed the appeal.

A tattoo artist self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found two of three required initial criteria met: lesser awards and artistic exhibitions. However, the final merits analysis concluded the totality of evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability status.

Brazilian lawyer with bar membership and limited publications sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria; record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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.

Global health specialist seeks extraordinary ability classification to establish aging healthcare services company. Claimed nine criteria; service center found two met. AAO affirms only two criteria satisfied, below three-criterion threshold. Appeal dismissed without reaching final merits.

Venezuelan actress, model, and entertainer seeks EB-1A classification. Only one of ten initial criteria met; remaining four claimed criteria rejected. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to satisfy threshold requirement of three evidentiary criteria.

A physics research professor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She established one criterion (scholarly articles) but failed to satisfy two others as judged. The AAO dismissed the appeal because she met fewer than three criteria, the threshold for final merits analysis.

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.

An information security analyst in IT and cybersecurity sought EB-1A classification. She claimed four criteria across proceedings. The AAO found membership and salary criteria unmet and reserved analysis of two others. Aggregate review showed no sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

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.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A classification through motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner submitted no new facts warranting reopening and failed to establish legal error in the prior decision denying the petition.