Published AAO appeal decisions

Management analyst petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. AAO affirmed service center finding that none met: award too limited in scope, membership was mere registration, contributions not of major significance, roles only supportive not critical. Zero of three required criteria satisfied; appeal dismissed without final merits review.

AI researcher with Ph.D. in electrical engineering seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Met two criteria: judging and scholarly articles. AAO dismissed appeal, finding original contributions criterion not met due to insufficient evidence of major significance; bulk of work predates 2014 and citations concentrated before 2019, insufficient for sustained national acclaim.

Senior staff engineer in semiconductor electronics and thermal management seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability. Claimed original contributions of major significance through citations and expert letters. AAO affirmed denial because citation count not high relative to peers and expert letters lack field-wide impact documentation beyond employer.

Business manager specializing in supply chain management and strategic purchasing sought EB-1A classification. Director found one criterion met; AAO withdrew this finding. Petitioner failed to establish three required criteria: published materials concerned employer not petitioner; support letters for original contributions lacked detail and corroboration; record showed no sustained acclaim at top of field. Dismissed.

A company seeks O-1A classification for its financial vice president. The AAO found the beneficiary did not satisfy three required evidentiary criteria. Award evidence was not nationally or internationally recognized, membership and judging claims lacked comparability to regulatory standards, and the appeal was dismissed.

A geoscientist and volcanology researcher pursuing doctoral degrees seeks extraordinary ability classification. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding the petitioner met five initial criteria and demonstrating through aggregate evidence sustained national or international acclaim, field recognition, and placement among the very top of the volcanology field.

An information security engineer sought extraordinary ability classification. The service center accepted judging and scholarly articles, and the appeal disputed three more: awards, original contributions and high salary. The AAO dismissed it, finding those criteria unmet and no sustained acclaim or top-of-field standing shown in the overall record.

An educator with a PhD in engineering seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO affirmed denial because she met only one of seven claimed criteria and has not demonstrated the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification.

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.

Biomedical researcher seeks EB-1A classification in sciences. Petitioner claimed at least three criteria including awards and membership. AAO found two criteria met by service center but affirmed neither award criterion nor membership was properly established, and concluded no sustained acclaim or top-tier recognition demonstrated.

Software developer and entrepreneur claiming extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met three initial criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim or that petitioner ranks among small percentage at field's top.

A business consultant and executive sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding she satisfied only two of ten criteria. Evidence relied on letters without corroboration, and prominence in the field was not demonstrated beyond an earlier period.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

A gaming electronics company sought extraordinary ability classification for a foreign game design lead, claiming five criteria. The AAO found two criteria met (leading role and high salary) but rejected awards and published material claims and found insufficient sustained individual acclaim, dismissing the appeal for failing the three-criterion threshold.

Massage therapist claiming EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found only one criterion met (judging) where three required; original contributions and high salary not shown; academy did not support sustained acclaim or recognition at top of field. Appeal dismissed.

A chemical engineer in nondestructive testing claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four criteria beyond the initial set. The AAO affirmed denial, finding membership not established, original contributions not evidenced, leading role lacking sufficient detail, and other criteria unmet. Appeal dismissed.

Entrepreneur in business and immigration investment sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Claimed six criteria including published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found published material deficient due to missing metadata and post-filing dates, original contributions lacked evidence of major field significance, and petition failed to meet three-criterion threshold for final merits analysis.

Market research analyst and communication specialist sought EB-1A classification. Claimed five criteria including awards, contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO found student award lacked requisite national recognition and contributions showed only prospective rather than established significance. Could not meet three-criterion minimum. Appeal dismissed.

Research scientist with PhD in materials science seeking EB-1A classification claimed to meet three of ten regulatory criteria. AAO found she met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. Appeal dismissed because petitioner has not shown sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

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 business and social psychology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO found he did not receive a major award and met only two of ten criteria, not the required three. Letters of recommendation and citation records did not establish major significance of contributions. Appeal dismissed.

A postdoctoral research scientist in regenerative medicine sought EB-1A classification. The AAO dismissed because she met only one of three required criteria: judging lacked specificity and original contributions lacked evidence of major significance to the overall field.

Petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification. On motion after adverse appeal, petitioner reargued same facts and claims previously addressed. AAO rejected new awards arguments and other criteria. Motion lacked genuine new facts supported by documentary evidence. Petition remains denied.

Postdoctoral biomedical researcher studying glioblastoma treatment claimed extraordinary ability through publications, peer review, and citations. AAO upheld meeting two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but rejected major contributions criterion because evidence showed significant work without demonstrating major significance to field. Final merits finding: not at top of field.