Published AAO appeal decisions

Artificial intelligence graduate researcher failed to meet three-criterion threshold. AAO found competition awards not nationally recognized; ChatGPT-sourced supporting documents deemed unreliable. With only two criteria potentially met, final merits analysis reserved as unnecessary.

A competitive swimmer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held he failed to meet the evidentiary threshold, finding only two criteria satisfied and rejecting published material and leading role claims. Final merits also not demonstrated despite claimed accomplishments.

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 CEO of a clean energy company claims extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting three of ten evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed denial because the totality of evidence failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the small percentage at the very top of the field, despite satisfying initial criteria.

A franchise development businessman sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed ten criteria and demonstrated two: published material and judging. The AAO affirmed denial, finding he failed to meet at least three criteria, satisfied no major award, and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Health technology company petitions for beneficiary as EB-1A extraordinary ability individual. Beneficiary met six of eight claimed evidentiary criteria, but AAO affirmed denial, finding evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top of technology entrepreneurship field.

IT consultant from Brazil sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found one criterion met (scholarly articles) but dismissed appeal because petitioner failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim and top-tier recognition required for extraordinary ability.

Hammered dulcimer artist and music educator sought EB-1A extraordinary ability to promote hammered dulcimer education and address educational gap. Claimed three criteria on appeal; AAO found petitioner did not satisfy membership or original contributions criteria, and waived remaining claims, thus failing to meet three-criterion threshold.

Business operations specialist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed high salary, membership, original contributions, and leading role criteria. AAO held high salary determination by service center withdrawn due to lack of comparative evidence; membership criterion not met; beneficiary cannot achieve required three-criterion threshold.

Research scholar and professor claims extraordinary ability. Met three regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination. AAO found evidence does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for small percentage at top of field.

Ceramic fabricator and contemporary artist blending cultural heritage with modern fabrication seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner satisfied only two criteria and failed to establish three additional criteria including awards, membership, and published materials with credible evidence.

A political science professor and researcher with a master's and PhD sought EB-1A classification based on extraordinary ability. She claimed nine regulatory criteria. The AAO found the awards and membership criteria unmet and did not reach the remaining criteria or final merits because initial evidence threshold was not satisfied.

A computer science engineer in management positions sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet three required evidentiary criteria, and declined to reach the final merits determination.

Tattoo artist self-petitioner met three regulatory criteria but failed to achieve extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner met published material, judging, and exhibition criteria but dismissed appeal because overall record did not demonstrate sustained acclaim or placement among small percentage at top of field.

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.

Information technology and AI professional claimed extraordinary ability. USCIS found three criteria met: judging, scholarly articles, and leading roles. Final merits determination concluded petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier field status. Appeal dismissed; unpublished district court ruling not binding.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established multiple initial criteria despite withdrawal of membership finding. Final merits analysis found evidence reflected time-limited success lacking sustained national or international acclaim required for pinnacle-level classification.

Chef and restaurateur in Turkey claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, meeting three initial criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding evidence insufficient under final merits determination to establish sustained national or international acclaim or ranking among field's highest echelon.

Physician, public health expert and entrepreneur with MD and recent MPH claimed five criteria but met only two. AAO affirmed denial, finding membership and original contributions criteria unsatisfied. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

Software development company petitioning for CEO beneficiary for EB-1A extraordinary ability. USCIS approved three criteria; AAO withdrew original contributions finding, leaving only two criteria met. Final merits determination failed to show top-tier standing, dismissing appeal.

Supply chain and materials management professional met three initial EB-1A criteria through published material, judging, and critical role. However, AAO affirmed dismissal because evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner rose to the small percentage at the very top of his field.

A dance coach self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS denied the petition for failing to meet three criteria. The AAO remanded because SCOPS failed to analyze all claimed criteria and did not provide reasoned explanation, denying the petitioner meaningful appellate review.