Published AAO appeal decisions

A media entrepreneur working in digital marketing sought extraordinary ability classification on her own behalf. She claimed many evidentiary criteria, and the appeal addressed awards, published material, original contributions and possibly scholarly articles. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the evidence lacked award criteria, proof of major media status, and proof of contributions of major significance.

Computer scientist petitions for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Established two of ten initial criteria: published material and judging. AAO held original contributions lack demonstrated major significance and salary evidence lacks adequate comparative context. Failed to meet threshold of three criteria.

Researcher in life sciences seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner did not meet one-time achievement standard or three of ten evidentiary criteria. AAO found insufficient evidence of awards, major media publication, major contributions, or leading critical role; aggregate review failed to establish sustained national or international acclaim.

A geologist self-petitioned for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO confirmed she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed on membership, original contributions, and leading role. Only two of three required criteria satisfied. No evidence of sustained national or international acclaim at the top of geology. Appeal dismissed.

An extraordinary ability petitioner, whose occupation is not stated, filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider after denial and earlier dismissals. The AAO dismissed it because no new facts were supported by documents and no incorrect application of law or policy was shown; the arguments merely repeated earlier ones.

Employer (veterinary group) petitioned for beneficiary, director of veterinary surgical education. Beneficiary met four initial criteria including publications and peer review. AAO dismissed, holding that while criteria were met, the totality of evidence did not show sustained national or international acclaim or position among the very top of the field.

A cybersecurity engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding he did not satisfy at least three of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked the sustained national or international acclaim required for final merits determination.

A molecular biologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although she met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles), she failed the third required criterion (original contributions of major significance), as evidence did not establish her research had widespread impact on the field.

CEO and software engineer claims extraordinary ability in sciences under EB-1A. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner met zero of seven evidentiary criteria claimed, lacking nationally recognized awards, relevant professional memberships, major contributions to field, scholarly publications, or high salary evidence.

Ecologist seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO dismissed because petitioner met only two of three required criteria; original contributions not established despite publications, citations, and funding from prominent sources.

A translational medicine researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO upheld the service center's denial, finding the petitioner met two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but failed to demonstrate major significance for original contributions. Without three criteria met, the threshold was not satisfied and final merits were not reached.

Self-petitioner in digital education transformation business seeks EB-1A classification. Three initial criteria met but appeal dismissed because record shows limited, recent instances without sustained national or international acclaim or evidence of top-tier recognition in the field.

Ballroom dance choreographer petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification on motion. AAO found petitioner failed to meet at least three required criteria: awards lacked sufficient documentation, memberships did not require outstanding achievements, training manual showed no major significance, leading role claim unsubstantiated, and salary data was incomparable. Motion dismissed.

Search engine optimizer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed five criteria, with service center finding only two met. On appeal, petitioner pursued scholarly articles claim based on published book, which AAO rejected as not constituting scholarly articles. Unable to meet three-criterion minimum, appeal dismissed without final merits analysis.

Airline pilot sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification claiming published material, original contributions, and critical role. AAO affirmed denial, finding no major award and failing to meet three regulatory criteria. Petitioner's safety innovations and comparable evidence claims rejected as insufficient.

A postdoctoral fellow in particle and energy transport sought EB-1A classification. The service center found three criteria met but the AAO affirmed that the totality of evidence did not show sustained acclaim or placement among the very top of the field, dismissing the appeal.

Materials engineer-economist self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria: membership, original contributions, and leading role. AAO found none met: military position unrelated to field, program implementation insufficient for major significance, and supporting letters lack specificity on distinguished role or organization reputation. Appeal dismissed.

An economist sought EB-1A classification for extraordinary ability. The AAO found he met three evidentiary criteria: association membership, published material, and judging. However, on final merits determination, the record lacked evidence of published scholarly articles, government implementation of research, or sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability. Appeal dismissed.

Computational biology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed judging, scholarly articles, and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that petitioner met only judging and scholarly articles but failed original contributions of major significance criterion, falling short of three-criterion threshold, and thus ineligible.

Tattoo artist with over twenty years experience claimed major award and six alternate criteria. AAO found published material, judging, original contributions, and high salary satisfied, but sustained acclaim insufficient. Decision dismissed appeal for lack of evidence of small percentage at very top of field.

Financial manager with eight years finance and four years management experience in Kazakhstan sought extraordinary ability classification claiming seven criteria. AAO found only judging criterion met (from SCOPS). Rejected awards, membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and exhibitions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient criteria satisfaction.

Fitness trainer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met two of ten regulatory criteria: published material and leading critical role. Claimed membership, original contributions, scholarly articles, and commercial success but AAO found none satisfied. Without three criteria met, final merits analysis not reached.

A photojournalist claims extraordinary ability in EB-1A. The AAO found SCOPS' decision contained factual errors and insufficient analysis, requiring remand. The decision lacked detailed consideration of evidence and failed to address all claimed criteria, warranting re-evaluation by SCOPS.

A salsa dancer, choreographer, and instructor self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, finding she met three criteria but failed final merits determination showing sustained acclaim at the very top of her field.