Published AAO appeal decisions

A visual artist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming six criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (published material and display of work) but this falls short of the three minimum required. The remaining claimed criteria were either rejected or abandoned, and the overall record did not demonstrate sustained national acclaim or placement among the very top of the field.

A senior director of product management met three of ten EB-1A criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role). However, the AAO upheld dismissal on final merits, holding the record demonstrates some field recognition but fails to show sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability at the very top.

A physician in diagnostic radiology residency seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding only two criteria met and concluding the beneficiary lacks the sustained national or international acclaim required for the small percentage at the very top of the field.

Paintless dent repair specialist in automotive industry seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two criteria (published material, judging) but failed to meet three required criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of the field.

Postdoctoral research fellow in biomedical engineering claimed extraordinary ability. Met three initial criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO held petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement among the very top in the field, citing lack of citation impact and insufficient evidence of upper-echelon status.

A biomedical engineer researcher sought EB-1A classification. The AAO affirmed that he met three initial criteria but dismissed his appeal, finding he failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or that he ranks among the very top of his field despite accomplishments.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete and coach seeks extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner established two of ten criteria but failed to meet three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and leading critical role claims rejected as unsupported by evidence of significant field impact. AAO found petitioner lacked sustained acclaim required for top-tier status.

Bioinformatics researcher with physics PhD and postdoctoral experience seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO held petitioner met only one of three required criteria (scholarly articles) and failed to establish major award, so extraordinary ability not demonstrated.

Postdoctoral physics associate claimed extraordinary ability based on judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed dismissal: although three initial evidentiary criteria were satisfied, final merits analysis showed petitioner lacked sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrable expertise placing him among top of field.

A computer scientist in AI/ML sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The petitioner met three initial evidentiary criteria (judging, scholarly articles, leading role) but failed the final merits determination. The record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or placement at the very top of the field.

A mountain climber and scout self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he met only one of the ten evidentiary criteria (published materials) but not the required three minimum. Overall record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or elite recognition.

Process engineering manager appealing dismissal of motion to reopen and reconsider EB-1A petition. AAO held motion properly dismissed because evidence submitted post-petition filing and lacked specificity regarding contributions of major significance; petitioner did not overcome basis for prior denial.

A contemporary dancer met at least three EB-1A evidentiary criteria but failed the final merits determination. The decision found insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, noting a prolonged absence from performing, a shift to other fields, and no evidence of ongoing recognition. Appeal dismissed.

A cinematographer from Kazakhstan sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although the AAO found one criterion met (exhibitions), the applicant failed to establish three total criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

Hockey referee seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met one criterion (leading critical role) but failed to satisfy minimum three-criteria threshold. Lacked major awards, qualifying association membership, judging role, or demonstrated original contributions of significance. Appeal dismissed.

Interior design firm petitioned for founder/principal designer claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met no initial three criteria: awards, judging, original contributions, and salary all failed. Prior O-1B approvals did not override stricter immigrant standards. Final merits analysis found insufficient acclaim for top percentage status.

Interior design business petitioned for senior interior designer O-1A nonimmigrant classification. AAO affirmed dismissal finding beneficiary met only published materials and recognition criteria; did not satisfy three-criterion threshold; petitioner also lacked valid U.S. employer status.

Chief financial officer filed as self-petitioner for extraordinary ability. Claimed six evidentiary criteria. AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria: membership letter merely repeated regulations, published materials were brief mentions not about his work, judging claim lacked specificity, and original contributions were unsubstantiated assertions without evidence of major significance.

Computer scientist in medical imaging and computer vision claimed extraordinary ability through publications and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion due to insufficient evidence of field impact. Final merits: accomplished but not at top of field.

A scientist claiming six criteria satisfied only two of the required three initial evidentiary thresholds. The AAO affirmed dismissal without reaching final merits, finding insufficient evidence that the petitioner commanded sustained national or international acclaim or ranked among the field's small top percentage.

An executive and consultant in finance and accounting sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. She met two of four claimed criteria but the AAO found she lacked the requisite sustained national or international acclaim and had not risen to the very top of her field.

Mechanical engineer and researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three regulatory criteria: judging, scholarly articles, leading critical role. However, failed to establish major significance of original contributions and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

AI and mobile app developer from Russia sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial because petitioner met only one of ten evidentiary criteria. Awards, membership, publications, judging, contributions, and salary evidence did not meet extraordinary ability standards.

Materials and science engineer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two of ten criteria: judging and scholarly articles. Failed third required criterion of original contributions of major significance. AAO found record does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.