Published AAO appeal decisions

A corporate executive sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but abandoned most on appeal. The AAO dismissed, finding only one criterion met and insufficient evidence of high salary or additional achievements, concluding the executive failed to demonstrate the sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Chief architect of digital transformations met three initial evidentiary criteria and demonstrated acclaim and recognition in his field. However, AAO found he was very good but not among the small percentage at the very top, dismissing the appeal.

A debt recovery and fraud prevention specialist claimed five EB-1A criteria but satisfied only one on appeal. The AAO affirmed denials of membership and published material criteria and withdrew the high-salary finding. With insufficient criteria met, final merits analysis was not reached.

Business consultant and CEO from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met two criteria: lesser awards and judging. The AAO rejected original contributions as merely disseminating others' work and found articles non-scholarly. Because the petitioner met only two of ten required evidentiary criteria, the AAO dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits.

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.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Business management professional self-petitioner seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three initial criteria but AAO found no sustained national or international acclaim, with internal awards only from 2007-2009, failing final merits determination.

Business consultant and executive self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reopen because evidence was either available during original RFE or postdated the petition filing, violating the requirement to establish eligibility at time of petition.

A business consultant mentoring immigrant entrepreneurs claimed extraordinary ability. The AAO found he did not meet the threshold of three evidentiary criteria and, alternatively, that he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top of his field.

Business consultant self-petitioner claimed six extraordinary ability criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reconsider, upholding prior findings that published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria were not met. Membership and leading role criteria were reserved as unnecessary since three criteria minimum was not satisfied.

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.

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.

A sales specialist and trainer claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A sought to satisfy four criteria: published material, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO affirmed dismissal, finding published material and original contributions unsubstantiated and insufficient to meet the three-criterion minimum.

A chief executive officer selling Italian furniture sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO held the petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published material lacked proper documentation, judging of manufacturers was not in an allied field, original business contributions lacked demonstrated major significance, and scholarly articles were not authored by petitioner.

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.

Sales and marketing specialist from Kuwait/Jordan seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed six criteria including awards, published material, and original contributions. AAO found only leading critical role met. Serious credibility issues and lack of corroboration for claims prevented satisfaction of three required criteria.

A human resources professional in Brazil sought EB-1A classification. She claimed five criteria: membership, judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only judging was met and dismissed the appeal, concluding she failed to satisfy the required three criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Management analyst petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that none met: award too limited in scope, membership was mere registration, contributions not of major significance, roles only supportive not critical. Zero of three required criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed without final merits review.

Business manager specializing in supply chain management and strategic purchasing sought EB-1A classification. Director found one criterion met; AAO withdrew this finding. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published materials concerned employer not petitioner; support letters for original contributions lacked detail and corroboration; record showed no sustained acclaim at top of field. Dismissed.

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Entrepreneur in business and immigration investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found published material deficient due to missing metadata and post-filing dates, original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance, and petition failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

Market research analyst and communication specialist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found student award lacked requisite national recognition and contributions showed only prospective rather than established significance. Could not meet three-criterion minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Logistics consulting executive seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, original contributions, and leading roles. AAO withdrew director errors on intent and benefit findings but upheld award criterion failure: personal receipt unproven; award lacked national recognition. With only two criteria potentially met, threshold of three not reached; original contributions and leading role claims reserved.