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.

A CEO and co-founder sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded the case because SCOPS relied on undisclosed research and failed to incorporate all evidence into the record or consider petitioner's comparable evidence requests under regulatory provisions.

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.