Published AAO appeal decisions

Doctoral student research scientist in robotics sought extraordinary ability classification. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal because original contributions criterion unsatisfied; limited citations and letters lacking specificity did not demonstrate work was regarded as major significance or that petitioner achieved sustained national or international acclaim.

A senior product manager in cloud computing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner met only two of three minimum criteria and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Telecommunications hardware and software producer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability for beneficiary. Beneficiary met four regulatory criteria but failed final merits determination; limited commercialization and citations insufficient to demonstrate sustained international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

An engineering services company petitioned for an engineer and data scientist beneficiary. Claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO affirmed only two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) met; original contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and leading role lacked institutional evidence. Appeal dismissed.

A cybersecurity firm sponsored a beneficiary software engineer. Director initially found three criteria met (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) but final merits analysis found no sustained acclaim. Petitioner filed motion to reopen; Director dismissed motions. AAO affirmed dismissal on procedural grounds without reaching underlying petition merits.

A computer hardware and software engineer employed by a development company met three initial evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The AAO found that while scholarly articles showed field notice and letters demonstrated regard among colleagues, this did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or top percentage status required for extraordinary ability classification.

A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.

Computer science associate professor claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed two were met but rejected original contributions claim. With only two criteria established, petitioner failed the initial evidentiary requirement and could not proceed to final merits analysis.

Chief technology officer claims extraordinary ability based on patents and press coverage. AAO found articles focus on company work, not personal achievements, and patents lack demonstrated major significance in field. Appeal dismissed without reaching remaining criteria.