AAO Decisions Explorer · Free
Published AAO appeal decisions
Search the decisions the Administrative Appeals Office has published, narrow them by visa, criterion, field and year, and read our summary of each one with a link to the official PDF.

Decisions in the library
6,586
6,586 classified
Visa types
3
Years covered
2005-2026
Latest decision
Aug 31, 2026
Filters
63 decisions
Outcomes in these results
- Dismissed
- Remanded
- Sustained
- EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsApr 2021Dismissed
Collaborative pianist enrolled in doctoral program claims EB-1A extraordinary ability. Director found two criteria met; petitioner appealed claiming two additional criteria. AAO rejected both new claims. With only two criteria met, petitioner failed initial evidence requirement. Appeal dismissed.
1 of 8 criteria metRead → - EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsApr 2021Dismissed
An actress and model claimed six EB-1A criteria. The AAO found she met only the judging criterion and dismissed her appeal, concluding she failed to demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim as required for this highly restrictive classification.
1 of 8 criteria metRead → - EB-1ALife sciences and medicineApr 2021Dismissed
A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AMarketing, media, communicationsApr 2021Dismissed
Sports journalist employed at major television networks initially claimed seven criteria. AAO found published material and high salary met but rejected original contributions, display, and critical role claims. Decision sustained dismissal based on lack of sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability.
2 of 10 criteria metRead → - EB-1ALife sciences and medicineApr 2021Dismissed
Neuroscientist sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal although petitioner met three evidentiary criteria. Final merits determination found no sustained national or international acclaim and failed to show petitioner ranked among the small percentage at the very top of the neuroscience field.
3 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and managementApr 2021Dismissed
Beauty products company petitioned for executive with extraordinary ability in business. Although the beneficiary met published material and leading role criteria, she failed to establish three total criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim required for EB-1A.
2 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-1ASports and athleticsApr 2021Dismissed
A mountaineering guide and expedition leader sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO affirmed two criteria were met but rejected membership and declined to reach other criteria. Because petitioner satisfied only two of ten required criteria and lacked sustained national or international acclaim, appeal was dismissed.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - O-1ASports and athleticsApr 2021Dismissed
Tennis director: O-1A nonimmigrant extension petition by country club employer. Beneficiary claimed awards, membership, and published material recognition. AAO held awards from collegiate play and professional tournaments not nationally or internationally recognized for excellence; insufficient criteria met.
0 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and managementApr 2021Dismissed
Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.
0 of 9 criteria metRead → - EB-1AArts, design, architectureApr 2021Dismissed
A painter sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. He claimed membership, published material, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found he satisfied only one initial criterion and failed to meet the required three. Appeal dismissed because the petitioner did not establish extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AMechanical and aerospace engineeringApr 2021Dismissed
An employer petitioned for an engineer to receive EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The beneficiary met two of ten criteria (judging and scholarly articles). On appeal, the AAO held the beneficiary failed to meet the required three criteria threshold because contributions lacked demonstrated major significance and sustained acclaim in the field was not established.
2 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-1AComputer science and AIMar 2021Dismissed
A robotics company CEO with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering claimed extraordinary ability, meeting three evidentiary criteria. The AAO found the evidence did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or achievement at the very top of the field.
3 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1AComputer science and AIMar 2021Dismissed
Computer science associate professor claimed three evidentiary criteria. AAO affirmed two were met but rejected original contributions claim. With only two criteria established, petitioner failed the initial evidentiary requirement and could not proceed to final merits analysis.
2 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsMar 2021Dismissed
A television and motion picture production professional claimed four additional criteria beyond the one met criterion. The AAO dismissed because she failed to satisfy three criteria and lacked evidence of sustained national acclaim or top-tier standing in film and television production.
1 of 11 criteria metRead → - EB-1ABusiness and managementMar 2021Dismissed
A consultant claimed extraordinary ability based on original contributions, leading role, and high salary. The AAO found only the leading role criterion met, fell short of the three-criterion minimum, and dismissed the appeal without reaching final merits analysis.
1 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1ALife sciences and medicineMar 2021Dismissed
Cancer researcher sought extraordinary ability classification. Petition was approved then revoked. Petitioner met judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed original contributions prong. Record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim; work was in training capacities at prestigious institutions.
2 of 4 criteria metRead → - EB-1AArts, design, architectureMar 2021Dismissed
Architect sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming five criteria. AAO found petitioner satisfied only publication criterion. Recognition was predominantly local rather than national or international; petitioner did not demonstrate being among the small percentage at the very top of the field.
0 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AData science and analyticsMar 2021Dismissed
An employer sponsored an agricultural data scientist for extraordinary ability. The AAO agreed she met two criteria: scholarly articles and peer review judging. However, the petitioner failed to meet the three-criterion threshold. Original contributions and critical role claims were unsubstantiated. Appeal dismissed for insufficient evidence.
2 of 6 criteria metRead → - O-1ASports and athleticsMar 2021Dismissed
Endurance horse rider and trainer seeks O-1A extension. Petitioner claimed three criteria: awards, membership, and published materials. AAO affirmed membership was met but found awards lacked sufficient corroboration of national or international recognition. Petitioner failed to satisfy the required three of eight alternative criteria for extraordinary ability.
1 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1AArts, design, architectureMar 2021Dismissed
Industrial engineer sought EB-1A classification. Met four evidentiary criteria but AAO dismissed appeal, finding petitioner had not demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim or achieved ranking among small percentage at top of field; appeared early in career.
4 of 6 criteria metRead → - EB-1AFilm, music, performing artsMar 2021Dismissed
An actor seeks extraordinary ability classification. She claims seven criteria including published materials, judging, original contributions, exhibitions, and leading roles. AAO found only judging and exhibitions met; two criteria insufficient. Petitioner lacks demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim required for top-tier classification.
2 of 8 criteria metRead → - EB-1ALife sciences and medicineMar 2021Dismissed
A research assistant professor in biomedical sciences sought EB-1A classification claiming four evidentiary criteria. AAO found judging and scholarly articles met, but published material and original contributions not met. Overall, petitioner failed to establish extraordinary ability or sustained national or international acclaim required for classification.
2 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1AArts, design, architectureMar 2021Dismissed
A visual effects artist employed at an animation studio claimed six criteria for extraordinary ability. The AAO found published materials criterion met but original contributions not met due to vague letters. At final merits, the decision held the petitioner lacked sustained acclaim despite being talented and promising, therefore not meeting the extraordinary ability standard.
1 of 7 criteria metRead → - EB-1APhysics and astronomyMar 2021Sustained
Company president and scientific instrumentation developer demonstrated extraordinary ability through peer review work, scholarly articles, leading roles with distinguished company, and original marine geology contributions. AAO sustained appeal finding sustained acclaim at very top of field.
5 of 5 criteria metRead → - EB-1AChemistry and materialsFeb 2021Dismissed
A chemistry researcher self-petitioned for extraordinary ability. Claimed three criteria: judging, original contributions, and scholarly articles. AAO affirmed two criteria met (judging and scholarly articles) but found original contributions lacked major significance. No evidence of postdoctoral training demand or top-field recognition. Appeal dismissed.
2 of 4 criteria metRead →
