Published AAO appeal decisions

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.

A watercolor artist seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO remanded because the Director's denial lacked complete analysis and sufficient explanation for rejecting several criteria claimed by the petitioner; Director must re-examine evidence and provide detailed reasoning.

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.

Safety and risk management expert claiming extraordinary ability. Petitioner claimed five criteria; AAO found only two met (judging and scholarly articles). Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria and lacked national or international acclaim.

Restaurant petitioned for O-1A classification of executive chef claiming extraordinary ability in the culinary arts. AAO dismissed appeal because beneficiary failed to establish any of the required evidentiary criteria, with evidence containing credibility and consistency issues.

An entrepreneur, city councilor and philanthropist sought EB-1A classification, claiming six evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the awards, original contributions and scholarly articles criteria unmet, reserved two others, and concluded fewer than three criteria were satisfied. It dismissed the appeal without a formal final merits analysis.

Marketplace entrepreneur from Russia in e-commerce sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner met only two of ten evidentiary criteria, failing to establish sustained national or international acclaim or intent to continue work in area of expertise in United States.

Equestrian rider and trainer specializing in show jumping sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed, finding petitioner met only two of three required initial criteria (awards and judging) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and placement among the very top of the field.

Physiology researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (judging and scholarly articles) but claimed only one additional criterion (original contributions). AAO found original contributions insufficiently demonstrated as major significance and dismissed appeal; final merits review not required.

Makeup artist seeking EB-1A claiming extraordinary ability in the arts. Met only one criterion (judging); failed published material and original contributions criteria. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner failed to meet three-criterion evidentiary threshold and lacks sustained acclaim required. Appeal dismissed.

Fashion designer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification emphasizing sustainable clothing and domestic vendors. AAO dismissed appeal; petitioner met only two of required three criteria (published material and exhibitions) and failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or top-tier standing.

A handball player and sports coach claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting eligibility under three criteria. The AAO affirmed that the petitioner met awards and judging criteria but found membership in a Russian federation did not require demonstrated outstanding achievement. Overall, the petitioner failed to establish sustained national acclaim and position at the very top of the field.

Athlete seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification met one of ten criteria but failed to demonstrate at least three. AAO held petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim or comparable evidence meeting regulatory standards; major league performance alone insufficient.

Associate professor in computer science seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO affirmed denial, finding petitioner satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as one of small percentage at top of field.

An advanced computing researcher claiming extraordinary ability met two criteria (judging, scholarly articles) but failed the original contributions criterion. The AAO found publication in high-impact journals and citation counts alone do not establish major significance without showing comparative ranking to baseline or evidence of major influence in the field. Overall acclaim lacking.