Published AAO appeal decisions

International consultant and policy analyst self-petitioner claimed four alternate criteria for extraordinary ability. AAO upheld USCIS denial, finding petitioner met only the leading role criterion but failed on awards, published material, and original contributions. Threshold of three criteria not satisfied; final merits declined.

A business legal consultant appealed AAO dismissal on motion to reconsider, challenging criterion findings. The AAO dismissed the motion, holding petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed final merits analysis, lacking sustained acclaim and elite field standing. Petitioner did not adequately address the dispositive final merits determination.

A Brazilian lawyer and prosecutor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO found petitioner met four criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading roles, though not high salary). However, in the final merits determination, the AAO held the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite status in the field.

A journalist from Kazakhstan with roles as poet, writer, and performer sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed, finding she did not establish three of ten criteria: no major award, membership organizations lack required standards, and blog posts do not constitute scholarly articles. Threshold not met; final merits not reached.

A lawyer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner claimed four criteria: judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading/critical role. The AAO found judging and contributions not met and declined to address the other two, dismissing for failure to satisfy the threshold of three criteria.

A food and product safety compliance professional sought EB-1A classification. The service center accepted three criteria and the petitioner claimed three more on appeal, which the AAO reserved. The AAO dismissed the appeal at the final merits step because the impact seemed limited to his employer and acclaim was not shown.

A Kazakh law professor sought EB-1A classification as alien of extraordinary ability. Although meeting three evidentiary criteria—judging, scholarly articles, and high salary—the AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that the petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim necessary to demonstrate extraordinary ability at the highest level.

A law and policy specialist in technology law and AI ethics sought EB-1A classification. AAO found petitioner did not satisfy three of ten initial criteria including membership, published materials, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. Initial evidence threshold not met; final merits analysis not reached.

Legal researcher and lecturer in human rights law claimed six criteria; USCIS found four met. AAO affirmed four criteria were satisfied but held applicant failed final merits analysis, finding insufficient sustained acclaim and failure to demonstrate position among very top of field.

A former judge seeks extraordinary ability classification based on judicial work in Armenia. The AAO found the petitioner met only the original contributions criterion and one criterion already accepted by the service center, falling short of the required three criteria. Appeal dismissed because threshold initial evidence requirements were not satisfied.

A policy researcher and advisor claimed seven evidentiary criteria for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS denied without adequately explaining why submitted evidence failed to meet each criterion. The AAO remanded because the decision lacked specific reasoned analysis of the extensive documentation provided, denying the petitioner fair opportunity to contest the denial.

Brazilian lawyer with bar membership and limited publications sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal, finding no major award and failure to meet at least three regulatory criteria; record lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Criminal defense lawyer in Brazil sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO held he met only one of three required alternative criteria (published material); original contributions and scholarly articles not established; overall evidence insufficient for sustained national or international acclaim.

Lawyer and legal entrepreneur self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including awards, membership, publications, contributions, roles, and salary. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met none of the criteria; director's analysis was thorough and unanswered on appeal.

Egyptian lawyer claims extraordinary ability under four criteria: membership, leading role, high salary, and original contributions. AAO affirmed denial. Membership in bar association was mandatory for all practitioners, not selective. Leading role claims lacked evidence of distinguished organizations. Salary evidence insufficient for comparative analysis. No sustained international acclaim demonstrated.

A medical doctor practicing medical malpractice litigation sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required to demonstrate extraordinary ability.

A pastor sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification through Christian missions work. Although the director found four criteria met, the AAO reversed three findings on review and affirmed only published material. With only one criterion met, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold and lacked sustained national or international acclaim.

Legal consultant seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed membership and original contributions in addition to scholarly articles. AAO found only two criteria met: scholarly articles met, but membership criterion withdrawn due to insufficient evidence. Original contributions lacked demonstration of significance. Overall record did not show sustained national or international acclaim or placement among field's very top.

Professor and researcher in law petitioned for extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, petitioner claimed two additional criteria (published material and original contributions), both rejected. Appeal dismissed; only two criteria met, three required. Insufficient sustained acclaim evidence.

A writer and consultant in occupational safety and mediation claimed seven criteria for extraordinary ability, later adding two more. The AAO found only judging criterion met and concluded insufficient evidence of the required acclaim for sustained national or international recognition in the field.

An international tax attorney specializing claimed six criteria but met none. The AAO found his bar association membership, published work, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, and leading role all unmet. Lacking three criteria and evidence of sustained international acclaim, the petition was dismissed.

A polygraph examiner, researcher and instructor sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming many evidentiary criteria. The AAO found only scholarly articles and judging satisfied, rejecting awards, membership and published material. Fewer than three criteria were met, and the aggregate record did not show sustained acclaim, so the appeal was dismissed.

An international relations scholar and consultant had EB-1A approval revoked. The AAO dismissed his appeal, finding he satisfied only one of ten criteria and lacked required initial evidence or documented sustained acclaim for extraordinary ability in the field.

A policy analyst seeking EB-1A in sciences met three initial criteria (judging, original contributions, scholarly articles) and demonstrated extraordinary ability in final merits. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner had sustained national acclaim at the very top of his field.

Attorney in South Africa with counsel representation claimed extraordinary ability. AAO found petitioner successful but lacking sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. Evidence included article from nine years prior, unpublished court decisions, and solicited letters, none demonstrating the major significance required for the classification.