Published AAO appeal decisions

Business owner self-petitioner in disposable personal hygiene products manufacturing sought EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO affirmed dismissal finding petitioner satisfied no three initial criteria; original contributions claim based on industry standard participation lacked sufficient evidence of major significance.

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.

A tourism specialist and entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met fewer than three evidentiary criteria and did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An entrepreneur sought EB-1A classification based on five claimed criteria. The AAO affirmed SCOPS findings that he met judging and leading role criteria but rejected published material due to missing author attribution, original contributions as lacking major significance, and high salary due to insufficient documentation. Appeal dismissed.

Project manager and entrepreneur in aviation technology sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found petitioner failed to establish three of ten regulatory criteria, withdrawing service center's finding on judging and rejecting original contributions and leading role claims.

An entrepreneur and inventor from Transnistria claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding he failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or judging experience, thus falling short of the required three criteria threshold.

An international travel company owner claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability in entrepreneurship and tourism. Although SCOPS found four criteria met, the AAO determined the membership criterion failed because fellowship does not require expert judgment of outstanding achievement. The AAO dismissed, finding petitioner merely very good, not among the small percentage at field's very top.

The petitioner is a chief executive and co-founder of a food technology company who sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming eight criteria. The service center accepted two, and he contested six on appeal. The AAO dismissed because he did not satisfy three criteria, and it did not reach the final merits.

Business professional in innovation ecosystem development claimed extraordinary ability through six criteria. AAO found only one criterion met (judging). Memberships lacked outstanding achievement requirement; published materials did not substantively address petitioner; original contributions insufficiently documented. Record did not establish sustained national acclaim.

Co-owner of bakery specializing in Brazilian sweets seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Applicant claimed six criteria including awards, membership, and judging. AAO found applicant met none of three required initial criteria because awards and judging experience were in culinary arts not business, and association membership did not demonstrate outstanding achievements in business field.

A Brazilian barbecue equipment manufacturer and CEO claimed seven EB-1A criteria. The AAO found he did not meet at least five of the claimed criteria, including membership and original contributions, and therefore failed to establish the required three criteria threshold.

A general manager and entrepreneur in China's building materials industry seeking EB-1A classification claimed four criteria but met only two. The AAO found his awards lacked national or international recognition and his contributions, while claimed, were not proven to be original and majorly significant.

A caviar business owner claiming extraordinary ability sought EB-1A classification based on sustainable aquaculture practices. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner failed to meet the major award threshold or three alternate criteria. Membership criterion was not met due to lack of documented personal membership; original contributions criterion failed as company success alone does not demonstrate field-wide significance.

Entrepreneur seeking extraordinary ability classification claimed six criteria. Director found published material and leading role criteria met; petitioner did not challenge denial of awards, membership, original contributions, and high salary criteria. AAO affirmed that petitioner failed to meet three criteria and that totality of evidence does not demonstrate sustained acclaim or top-of-field status.

An entrepreneur, city councilor and philanthropist sought EB-1A classification, claiming six evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and scholarly articles criteria unmet, reserved two others, and concluded fewer than three criteria were satisfied. It dismissed the appeal without a formal final merits analysis.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Technology entrepreneur claimed extraordinary ability in business. Director found two criteria met; petitioner claimed three on appeal. AAO affirmed two criteria met (leading role, high salary) but rejected published material for translation deficiencies and original contributions for lack of major field impact. Appeal dismissed for insufficient criteria.

An inventor and consultant in packaging and industrial machines claimed extraordinary ability through awards, memberships, media coverage, patents, and institutional roles. The AAO found awards and memberships met but rejected published material, original contributions lacking sustained national impact evidence, and leading role. Only two criteria satisfied; innovations lacked proven sustained national recognition despite company use. Appeal dismissed.